An International Humanitarian Organisation : A United Nations of the People [1 ed.] 9781443891622, 9781443851978

Citation preview

An International Humanitarian Organisation

An International Humanitarian Organisation: A United Nations of the People By

James David Parker

An International Humanitarian Organisation: A United Nations of the People By James David Parker This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by James David Parker All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5197-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5197-8

 To Jennie, Mother, Father and Siblings





CONTENTS

Prologue............................................................................................ xi Climate Change: Global Titanic Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter One ....................................................................................... 7 The Development of an Ineffective International Climate Change Regime Chapter Two .................................................................................... 13 The Limits of International Environmental Law within a Human-centric Paradigm Chapter Three .................................................................................. 21 ‘Human-centric’ Capitalism and Unsustainable Economic Growth or ‘Earth-centric’ Capitalism and Sustainable Economic Stability? Chapter Four .................................................................................... 27 Flexible Mechanisms or Deceptive Mechanisms? Chapter Five .................................................................................... 31 A Solution: A Montreal Protocol approach to GHG Emissions Chapter Six ...................................................................................... 35 Resistance to a Montreal Protocol approach to GHG Chapter Seven.................................................................................. 37 Beyond a Montreal Protocol Approach: ‘Earth Governance’ and ‘Earth Jurisprudence' Chapter Eight ................................................................................... 41 Towards a New Paradigm

viii

Contents

Chapter Nine.................................................................................... 45 New Politics Chapter Ten ..................................................................................... 51 Insights into Cooperation Chapter Eleven ................................................................................ 55 The Earth, Stupid! Chapter Twelve ............................................................................... 59 Objectivity Chapter Thirteen .............................................................................. 61 International Environmental and Humanitarian Governance Chapter Fourteen ............................................................................. 71 Urgency Chapter Fifteen ................................................................................ 81 Fresh Air Chapter Sixteen ............................................................................... 85 Unity: What Does It Mean? Chapter Seventeen ........................................................................... 91 Wisdom Epilogue........................................................................................... 93 Appendix ....................................................................................... 103 Acknowledgement ......................................................................... 109 Further Reading ............................................................................. 111 End Notes ...................................................................................... 119

An International Humanitarian Organisation

ix

About the Author ........................................................................... 127 About the Book ............................................................................. 131

 



PROLOGUE CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL TITANIC

There were many factors that led to the sinking of the Titanic and the death of so many; most of them were caused by human ignorance. The first was the rush to get the ship to its destination in order to gain reputation and financial success. Secondly, the numbers of life boats were reduced to increase the aesthetic appeal of the ship. Thirdly, the belief that the ship was unsinkable created a false sense of security, which led to an imprudent attitude about how robust the ship was, matched against the power of the ocean. Finally, the passengers on the ship were so absorbed by their personal affairs that they had little idea the Titanic was sinking, until it was too late. Why do I bring up these factors? Firstly, there is a striking resemblance between the human ignorance that led to the sinking of the Titanic, and the sinking of our whole existence owing to the climate crisis. The themes of economic advantage and arrogance that contributed to the sinking of the Titanic remain all powerful, with Governments and corporations putting economic motives above the very thing that sustains us - the environment. As a consequence, we are hurtling towards a metaphorical iceberg (if there are any left), with our eyes closed. Secondly, we are placing more value on aestheticism and consumerism than safety (in this parallel, the safety of our planet); and putting aesthetics over safety will always lead to failure. Thirdly, the belief that humanity is indestructible and that all the things we have created and accumulated are enduring, has given rise to a false sense of security. Consider the danger inherent within

xii

Prologue

the fixed assumption that the Titanic was ‘unsinkable’, versus the modern day story that ruminates on how ‘the planet will be OK’ or that ‘nothing will happen in our lifetime’. Sound familiar? This was laid bare for all to see on that fateful night when the socalled mighty Titanic sank. The idea that the climate crisis will radically affect the so-called mighty humanity within the first half of this century is inconceivable to most of us. We cling to a personal and collective delusion that, somehow, everything will be OK; but unless we take intelligent action, we will be complicit in the sinking of humanity’s ship. The final parallel comes from those passengers on the Titanic, so absorbed with their own personal affairs that they didn’t open their eyes to see the reality until the very last moments. The climate crisis is clearly the biggest threat to human existence, and yet it still isn’t taken seriously or prioritised within our world order. It seems that we are ignoring its existence, placing our partisan political, religious, social, economic and personal desires above the sinking ship that contains us all. I wonder if the same human ignorance will take place in the advent of the climate crisis, as it progressively gets worse, or have we learnt from our mistakes? Are we acting with greater intelligence?



INTRODUCTION

The twenty-first century is seeing increasingly severe environmental crises that are having a devastating impact on the communities they affect around the world. At the same time the global financial crisis saw international banks become insolvent, forced, along with the Neo Conservative government in America, to rely on nationalisation to save them; a previously unthinkable event, even for a progressive government in Europe. In a post 9/11 world, where the ‘war on terror’ remained a popular rhetoric, President Barack “Hussein” Obama was elected into the White House. We are therefore seeing societal change, and global change, with nations becoming increasingly integrated and mutually dependent, facing the shared issues of global warming, migration, urban chaos, disease, poverty and shortages of crucial resources. This sense of inter-connectedness has been aided by a technological revolution, with exponential levels of information sharing across borders and cultures. The creation of the European Union after the Cold War between 1946 and 1991 led to the decentralisation of regions; this in turn developed a dichotomy with the emergence of global communication and globalisation. The international treaties, customs and legal principles that are in place presently have often been violated, despite the fact that there is a formal organization, called the United Nations (UN), which aims to implement these laws, together with the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the UN does have a universal membership and a number of influential humanitarian programs that can also deploy peacekeeping forces. There are now a significant number of international institutions; the international police force, Interpol; The World Bank; International Monetary Fund (IMF); The World Trade Organisation (WTO); and the Organisation for the Economic

2

Introduction

Co-operation and Development (OECD). Alongside these organisations are the, G7 and G20 countries, who meet annually to review global issues like climate change. However, these are all limited in their effectiveness as any initiatives they propose must first be filtered through the perspective of nation centrism. This perspective has developed over thousands of years of human evolution. A truly holistic, humanitarian approach to international governance is further limited by international organizations and laws that are based on international trade and the global economy. These economic factors have an enormous influence over humanity as a whole, even beyond that wielded by states. Although this is now creating interdependence between nation states, the globalisation of corporate power is simultaneously overriding the power of national governments. The functioning of governance at a global level is now operating in response to human activities that communicate, coordinate and cooperate as a whole, and not as nation states. The increase in global communications in the media, and in particular the internet, has allowed information and different worldviews to spread virally across the world beyond any political authority. This whole networking process has now significantly transcended the nation state. It has also led to a level of international cooperation, coordination and communication never before seen in human history. This means that influencers and lobby groups are coming from a multitude of sources, which are now outside of the control of governments, international organizations and international laws. This international perspective must now become a definite and organized political cooperative framework with a transformative and practical plan. This plan can begin to create a force that is agreed upon with clear and sensible reasoning. The precise reason for taking such action comes from the current collective, creative and cultural energy at an international level. The general power of this creativity gives authentic purpose to the individual.

An International Humanitarian Organisation

3

Progressive politics must now also face these urgent global and geo-political realities. Change is happening at an incredible speed, which is rapidly altering our understanding and behaviour. As a result, ethics, transparency, sharing, sustainability and creativity are increasingly driving mainstream agendas. It seems we are moving beyond the era where self-seeking individualism and neo-liberalism are seen as the accepted norms. A political battle between left and right within neo-liberalism seems to strengthen the so-called powerful one percent, and this political activity allows greater power to be wielded over the population. These economic instruments of power win over existing institutions due to fragmentation. It is now obvious that a movement is needed to achieve a huge amount of solutions, but this must be driven from an international perspective. The environment cannot be seen as just another ‘issue’. The environment is the source of all economic activity and, if it is destroyed, then the economic system, and the people that are supported by it, will suffer. The Sioux Indians summarised it best when they said: “When all the trees are gone and there is no more food, you cannot eat money”. Climate change is now part of national and international policymaking, with a focus on developing a low carbon energy future. Current policies aim to prevent dangerous climate change levels, setting a target that average global temperature increases that do exceed two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Most mainstream scientists are now in agreement, however, that this target is not realistic, and that the situation is far more severe than previously thought. If this is the case, how can we reverse the destruction that we are causing to the planet and its many life forms? During the past thirty years, through the process of international cooperation, the International Climate Change Regime (ICCR) has come into existence, attempting to tackle climate change through developing a multilateral framework that controls greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, principally from developed nations. I believe this approach is ineffective, however, since it ignores the root cause of 

4

Introduction

climate change; essentially, it is economic growth and deforestation causing the constant accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. It is because of these factors that the ICCR mechanisms have not had any significant effect on GHG output. This book will go on to argue that, under the current regime, emission reductions are a myth. Trying to reduce emissions, when GHGs are constantly being released into the atmosphere (by transportation, production and domestic activity), and the number of sinks are decreasing, is like trying to empty a container which is constantly being filled with water; it cannot be done. Only by turning off the tap will the water stop flowing. In the same way, if we stop releasing GHGs into the atmosphere and cutting down the rainforest, then the accumulation will stop. It is futile to attempt to reduce emissions while the tap is full on. Many now claim that emission targets cannot be met1 and CO2 emissions are the highest they have been for 800,000 years.2 As Professor Chris Green stated in the McGill Reporter’s ‘Why Kyoto's a no go’: “Climate change policy is an energy problem, because energy is required for human well-being. Despite improvements in efficiency every year, demand for energy will continue to rise.”3

We need to slow down and turn off the tap (cause) rather than try to empty the container (effect) whilst the tap is still on full. This seems very logical, but many within the ICCR ignore this obvious fact and have built an unworkable and overly complex regime around this flawed thinking, like building a fragile and complex structure on quicksand. Even if we could hypothetically or miraculously turn off the tap overnight, the container would still be full. In the same way, even if we began to stop the accumulation of GHGs, then there would still be an excessive concentration of GHGs within the atmosphere, which would continue the greenhouse effect. This book argues that the ICCR, and the overall procedure of environmental law, are ineffective and completely out of line with the reality of the climate crisis situation. The nation states which

An International Humanitarian Organisation

5

form the international community are putting economic factors above the environment, allowing corporations to drive an agenda of comparative advantage between nation states. This approach is based on false premises that include the perception that “humans are separate from natural systems, that we are superior to all other species, and that we, together with legal persons such as corporations, are the only subjects in a world of objects”.4 The fact that thousands of climate scientists now agree that anthropogenic (human-induced) activity is the cause of global warming, makes it clear that it is time to think anew, as Dr James Baker claimed: “There is better scientific consensus on this issue than any other”.5

The effects of global warming are well documented, from the melting of the polar ice caps, to desertification, extreme weather patterns and the extinction of many species.6 In combination with human induced deforestation, which further prevents the growth of sinks, and undermines ICCR sink mechanisms, the situation is increasingly severe. Thousands of scientists claim that this crisis has already reached, or will reach within the next decade, a tipping point7 that could lead to a variety of catastrophic scenarios. These scenarios could occur within the next 50 years, or possibly earlier, and range between the collapse of the ocean conveyor belt, the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, methane release from the sea floor, the collapse of the ice shelves in Greenland and Antarctica, and the rise of sea levels engulfing low lying land8 all accumulating in a radical shift in our planet’s activity and formation. This would cause a domino effect of events such as unprecedented mass migration, the collapse of the global economy as clearly outlined in the Stern Review, mass food and water shortages, the creation of uninhabitable areas and the destruction of whole communities. At the same time, the ICCR seems to be aiming at a 60% cut in emission by 2050 only as a best case scenario.9 These targets fails to take into account the circumstances and environmental changes that could occur in the future. 

6

Introduction

These targets project the idea that we will be playing by the same rules up to 2050. We cannot expect the global climate situation to stay the same while the domestic, industrial and transportation situation is adding to emissions at an alarming rate, thus escalating the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change10 (IPCC) has given scientific legitimacy to the ICCR by publishing its Second Assessment Report (SAR) back in 1995, which concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is discernible human influence on global climate” and that the overall impact of this influence will be negative. There is clearly a massive disparity between the level of multilateral cooperation within the ICCR, governed by nation states, and the obvious changes in the ecosystem, together with the evidence and warnings from climate scientists. The urgency of action is clearly immediate and it is time that we stop dithering and act now.



CHAPTER ONE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INEFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME

In 1994, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) was signed by over 165 countries and ratified by 100, including the United States and all the developed nations (Annex 1, developed countries and countries undergoing the transition to a market economy). By the end of 1994, the convention had entered into force making the FCCC legally binding on the parties (Conference of the Parties (COP)). The first COP was in Berlin in 1995 and it rhetorically focused on the success of the Montreal Protocol. COP agreed that they should: “Protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Accordingly, it is agreed that the parties from the developed countries “should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse threats thereof.”11 This was developed from the ultimate objective of the FCCC of “stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”12 The Conference of Parties (COPs) discusses and negotiates the implementation of the Convention and in 1997, during COP 3, which was held in Kyoto, a protocol to the Convention was adapted. The Kyoto Protocol further evolved the ICCR by embracing the Montreal Protocol principle of “science driven” responses to “new information as the threat emerged”.13 The Protocol evolved the ICCR by introducing quantified GHG

8

Chapter One

emission limitations and reduction commitments (found in Article 3). The objective of this protocol was to continue the implementation towards cutting emissions of GHGs. The Protocol was opened for signature in March 1998 and entered into force in February 2005, with more than “30 industrialized countries bound by specific and legally binding emission reduction targets for the period 20082012.”14 The Protocol established the principle that developed countries should take the first steps and set definitive targets. In order to ensure fairness between developed countries and developing countries, the two groups were treated differently, by calling on developed nations to take the lead to cut quantified emissions in Article 3(1). Clean development mechanisms aim to help developing countries, whilst recognising the industrialised countries’ contributions. The ‘theory’ was that if states met their differentiated emission commitments, it would prevent the predicted results (of the IPCC) of extreme global warming. However, since then we have had numerous international meetings, COPs and international conventions, led by the wealthiest nations within the United Nations (UN). But the fundamental error of the Kyoto Protocol is that, while the Montreal Protocol made developed countries reduce their ‘manufacturing’ and ‘utilisation’ of ozone depleting substances by 50%, it only aims at ‘emission reductions’ on top of the continuous ‘manufacturing’ and ‘utilisation’ of GHGs. Therefore, the commitment doesn’t reverse the accumulative trends in GHGs within ‘manufacturing’ and ‘utilisation’ (like the Montreal Protocol) but only attempts to skim off some of the GHG accumulation, without disrupting the ‘manufacturing’ and ‘utilisation’ process, thus it has proved ineffective. In ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures’ it states:

The Development of an Ineffective International Climate Change Regime

9

“Climate change falls into the second category because the threshold that it establishes – dangerous anthropogenic interferences with the climate system – allow activities causing such interferences to continue up to a point. The stabilisation of concentrations to avoid this point being reached provides the common long-term objective of the climate regime.”15

In the FCCC, countries that are listed in Annex 1 are obliged to limit and reduce their GHG emission levels, with a view to reducing their overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the first “commitment period” of 2008-2012.16 However, most scientists now agree that a) this was unfeasible and failed, and b) even if it had been feasible, it would still have fallen far short of the reductions needed to reverse the destructive trends.17 As pointed out by Kal Raustiala in ‘Compliance and Effectiveness in International Regulatory Cooperation’: “The pursuit of compliance can sometimes be counterproductive to the achievement of effectiveness.”18

The first commitment period was created with the vision that it would make room for “economic growth and at the same time prevent a build-up of anthropogenic GHGs before it becomes dangerous”.19 This is backed up by Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, and Article 3 in the FCCC, that postulates the “Precautionary principle” in order to protect the environment, by not delaying until overwhelming scientific proof of harm is available. Evidence shows that unsustainable economic growth has caused the build-up of GHG emissions and this has already become dangerous. Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) told the BBC on 4th September 2006 that: “There’s nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide. The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous.”21

This was also expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report, 2001. In this report it 

10

Chapter One

claimed that climate change was now real and that there was a 9099% confidence level that it will strengthen,22 and that about three quarters of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, during the past 20 years, are due to fossil fuel burning.23 They also stated that “‘Business-as-usual’ scenarios predict an increase in global mean temperatures greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years”.24 At the same time, for example, the European Union (EU) had only adopted an emission reduction target of 8%, and Canada of 6%, to reduce levels back to those seen in 1990, and all to be achieved between 2008-2012 (in the “the first commitment period”), but this failed. This commitment is clearly ineffective and unfeasible; it therefore needs to be revised. This is also clearly defined in the ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures’: “Some have made identical declarations when ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, plus a statement that the Protocol’s emission targets are inadequate to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”25

The ICCR mitigation process, which aims to reduce emissions within developed countries, must go further and begin to focus on devising effective mechanisms that phase out GHGs emissions altogether, in both developed and developing countries (giving special treatment to help developing countries). This approach is similar to the International Ozone Layer Regime (IOLR) that did successfully phase out ozone depleting substances within a twentyyear period. The Montreal Protocol is an important agreement because it worked; it was considered the “most effective international environmental treaty”.26 However, current science now claims GHGs are also depleting the ozone layer.27 At the same time, the IOLR only focuses on gases like Chlorofluorocarbons gases (CFC - nontoxic, non-flammable chemicals containing atoms of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine) and therefore the ozone regime has also become ineffective in actually preventing ozone depletion; furthermore, such substances are being successfully phased out, thus decreasing concentration in the ozone layer. For both the prevention of ‘ozone depletion’ and ‘climate change’ we need an

The Development of an Ineffective International Climate Change Regime 11

ICCR that phases out GHGs. Economics professor Chris Green, while at the British Antarctic Survey, pointed out: “Debating emission targets really obscures the real issue. - The only way to actually control global warming is to make massive investments in research and development to develop alternative energy sources. It would take an 85 per cent reduction in emissions world-wide to actually stop global warming. Those kinds of sacrifices would be overturned politically. What we really need are alternatives to fossil fuels.”28

In 1994 the FCCC aimed to get Annex 1 parties to return their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.29 However, this failed, and the commitment period of the Protocol for 2008-2012 also failed. The evidence clearly shows that due to economic growth and mass deforestation, emissions (deforestation also contributes to 30% of CO2 emissions, together with reductions in CO2s sink absorption)30 GHGs are actually increasing despite the ICCR attempts to reduce them.31 Even though there are improvements, energy will continue to rise. This was outlined by Professor Chris Green: “Climate change policy is an energy problem, because energy is required for human well-being. Despite improvements in efficiency every year, demand for energy will continue to rise.”32 At the same time, the current global economy is vulnerable to the impact of climate change in both developed and developing countries, but particularly in the latter, making this whole approach very imprudent. GHG emissions from developing countries (especially ‘economies in transition’ like China and India) are rising rapidly; however, they still remain far lower than developed countries. COP 17 to 20 set down the foundations to prevent an increase of 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, which led to the agreements at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21, held in Paris, France. It was the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and led to the negotiating of the Paris Agreement with a consensus of all 196 parties. The agreement reached a goal for limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared to pre-industrial levels 

12

Chapter One

(with a zero net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions), which is to be reached during the second half of the 21st century. The agreement also established a ‘global stocktake’ that reopened the national goals of aiming to ‘update and enhance’ emissions every five years, which starts in 2023. There was no comprehensive timetable nor any country-specific goals on emissions reductions that could be combined with the Paris Agreement. The Convention goals were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would limit global temperature increases. However, the Agreement will not be a binding target until the 55 parties that create over 55% of the world's greenhouse gas have ratified it. They will then set a target for emission reduction called a nationally determined contribution (NDC). However, this is still voluntary concerning the size of the reduction, and at the same time will not be a mechanism that forces the nation to introduce targets with specific dates for enforcement measures. It will only have a "name and shame" system. Total emissions from developing countries are projected to surpass those of developed countries within ten years.33 Therefore, we must consider whether it is in anyone’s interests to continue with a carbon-based economy. Most climate scientists now agree that there will be an escalation of serious climate-induced damage within the next twenty years.34 The central question remains: what can international environmental law (IEL) do about it?



CHAPTER TWO THE LIMITS OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WITHIN A HUMAN-CENTRIC PARADIGM

The main development of international environmental law (IEL) happened from 1972. Similar UN international meetings happened consequently, with increasing focus in mainstream media and politics, but which continued to repeat the same limitations. This period of international environmental consciousness did start with the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, which developed the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It set the foundations to progress towards the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio Conference focused on sustainable development including economic, market-based instruments to achieve environmental compliance. Unfortunately, the rapid creation of International Environmental Law (IEL) has not prevented or significantly decreased worldwide ecological degradation.35 A significant number of stakeholders within IEL have a myopic perspective under which they imagine that IEL is succeeding while nature is dying. Documents do not represent achievements when extreme environmental degeneration is increasing. As the Executive Director of the UNEP, Klaus Töpfer stated: “It is the state of the environment that tells us whether our policies and programmes are effective.”36

The current positive law paradigm in IEL has failed to address the environmental crises engulfing us. Therefore, we need legal

14

Chapter Two

principles in IELs that are effective at preventing the exploitation and devastation of the natural world. This change must happen by moving away from ‘human-centric’ laws (how laws affect human interests) to ‘Earth-centric’ laws (how laws affect the whole planet and thus humans),37 rather than just creating new human-centric laws within an increasingly bureaucratic and complex regime. These questions were first raised in the early 1970s by Professor Christopher Stone in his article published in 1971 ‘Should Trees Have Standing – towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects’.38 The article was dismissed by many lawyers at the time because it didn’t fit into their worldview. During the 1960s and 70s there was a similar reaction to ‘Gaia hypotheses’ by James Lovelock within the scientific community. As Environmental Lawyer Cormac Cullinan pointed out so clearly: “Trying to think in a way that not only transcends our socially constructed compartmentalisation of knowledge, but also to a large extent, our cultures themselves, is difficult.”39

However, both these ideas are now becoming widely accepted within the mainstream consciousness. In the 1970s, Stone’s idea was assumed to advocate that trees’ rights are exclusively the same as human rights, rather than recognising the trees’ natural rights simply because they are part of the universe, just like the right of our planet’s ‘atmosphere’. “Although the majority of areas beyond national jurisdiction have specific regimes (such as Antarctica, outer space and the sea), there is no comparable ‘law of the atmosphere.’”40

Thomas Berry, one of the leading thinkers on human relationships with the natural world, wrote: “We need legal structures and political establishments that will know that our way into the future is not through relentless industrial development but through the living forces that brought us into being and are the only forces that can sustain us in the coming centuries.”41

International Environmental Law within a Human-centric Paradigm

15

These observations became the foundation of Cormac Cullinan’s approach to environmental law expressed in his book Wild Law, A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Cormac Cullinan, a practising environmental lawyer, advocated radical changes in our current systems (for regulating the environment) which he claimed merely “endorse the wholesale destruction of the Earth and its life-support systems”.42 He argues that governance systems should become Earth-centric and promote the interests of all other species with whom we share the Earth. He stated: “Wild Law places great emphasis on the importance of making a shift from an anthropocentric to an Earth or eco-centric approach. By this I mean that it is important to recognize that the universe does not revolve around us and that we must regulate ourselves with due regard to the fact that we are part of a bigger system with which we must conform in order to flourish.”43

The human-centric approach in IEL can be seen in the Rio Declaration, Principle 1 and Principle 12: “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”;44 and “States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation”.45 Like the Rio Declaration, the FCCC also promotes sustainable development in that economic growth will enable countries to “better address climate change”46 However, it is clear that this (human-centric) approach allows emissions to increase in both developed and developing countries and, therefore, the mitigation effort of the ICCR to reduce GHGs under the economic growth paradigm is ineffective. Long term economic growth under the current system (i.e. excessive utilisation of natural resources) cannot continue in the same way for much longer. Paul Hawken expressed this clearly in ‘The Ecology of Commerce': “The dirty secret in environmentalism is that there is no such thing as sustainability. Habitats can endure over millennia, but it’s



16

Chapter Two

practically impossible to calculate the sustainability of specific fisheries, tracts of land, and actual forests. We have also probably already passed the point where present planetary resources can be relied on to support the population of the next forty years. Any viable economic program must turn back the resource clock and devote itself actively to restoring damaged and deteriorating systems — restoration is far more compelling than the algebra of sustainability.”47

Human-centric approaches in IEL are expressed within the multilateral relationships between sovereign states, who all claim equality, and thus no state legally recognises another as a superior authority.48 Therefore, the idea that a sovereign state would constrain its own economic growth appears to be an unrealistic concept under the current international legal paradigm. Many argue that the only politically viable approach to climate mitigation is to devise mechanisms that solve the climate crisis within economic growth.49 “Integration of the environment, economic development and social justice components, across the international system, lies at the heart of sustainable development. The achievement of this goal, however, sits uneasily with an international legal order traditionally defined as a system of sovereign states cooperating to regulate their conduct so that each can pursue its self-interest more efficiently.”50 This paradigm is reflected in the FCCC in which it contains principles and general obligations, for example, “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (Article 2: second sentence).51 Customary international law also affirms the sovereign right of states to manage their own natural resources (Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration). Customary IEL comes as close to Earth-centrism by prohibiting a state from allowing activities on its territory to inflict serious damage on the environment of other states (or on parts of the

International Environmental Law within a Human-centric Paradigm

17

environment that do not belong to any state, such as the global commons).52 However, this is still human-centric because to what extent can GHGs released in one state not affect another state or areas of the global commons? How much forest may a state cut down before it affects other states? For example, in Brazil the rainforest is being cut down to accommodate farming and loggers in order to export products for economic security. The loss of the forest should clearly be sanctioned and unlawful since it affects the whole planet; however, because IEL is human-centric it therefore allows those who profit from this to be strongly motivated to fight for this activity within IEL due to their sovereign rights. At the same time, international trade laws (within the World Trade Organisation) also back this sovereign right to unrestricted trade.53 Article 20 in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) states that: “Measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or are disguised restriction on international trade” Cormac Cullinan clearly states: “Even concepts such as sustainability tend to be focused on determining the maximum level of exploitation that can be sustained, rather than maintaining a healthy balance.”54

The human-centrism of the Rio Declaration in Principle 2 also promotes the exploitation of resources: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their resources pursuant to their own environmental and development policies and the responsibility to ensure the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states”.55 The sovereignty of a state and not the ecosystem, conservation of nature, and the sensible balance of the whole earth are given priority. The inability of states to achieve consensus on IEL is 

18

Chapter Two

created by states preserving their unrestricted sovereign rights and in doing so there are no real sanctions for non-compliance. “In other words, even in the area of environmental law, the main factor in deciding whether or not to permit land to be used in an environmentally destructive fashion is the utility of the proposed activity of humans.”56

Human-centrism within IEL is expressed in its approach to multilateral agreements between governments and international organisations, but an Earth-centric approach would sanction the legal persons who own, use, or damage ecological resources. The current paradigm is restricted because when the sovereignty’s economic interests conflict with environmental protection, then sovereign supremacy prevails within treaty obligation. The objectives of the status quo are based on ignoring the importance of our relationship (and reliance) on nature, being that which sustains us all and who we are, the Earth. This encourages the exploitation of the Earth’s environment due to the unrestrained consumption of natural resources for economic gain. This is sustained by a false premise that there is a separation between humans and the environment, what Cullinan calls the homosphere: “For centuries now we humans have been enthusiastically engaged in constructing a delusory ‘human world’ that is separate from the real universe. We have rejected the biosphere into which we were born and have erected in our minds a vast, hermetically sealed ‘human only’ world.”57

However, if the environmental effects are not heeded, it is almost certain that the expanding world economy will become incompatible and unsustainable with the ecosystem that supports our lives. It is therefore important to consider whether economic liberalisation is in the common interests of humanity. As Peter Brown, Director of the McGill School of Environment states: “The objective of economic growth is incoherent and actually opposed to human well-being... It has become obvious that the

International Environmental Law within a Human-centric Paradigm

19

scale of the economy is outgrowing the ecological systems on which it depends.”58

From an Earth-centric perspective, the planet doesn’t recognise the legality of states: “it just reacts to human activities as a whole”.59 At the same time, competition among states encourages the continued unsustainable production and consumption of the world’s natural resources. This threatens the ecosystem and its ability to sustain the economy in the long term, bringing humanity closer to an environmental crisis. The ecosystem is one organic whole, therefore a so-called ‘state’ emitting GHGs on one side of the planet ‘will’ affect a state on the other side. Since we live on one planet and the ecosystem is interconnected,60 it is futile to try and divide environmental damage among states by giving a sovereign country the right to exploit the ecosystem because it conceptually exists within a boundary and historical context. The homosphere has been created within this context and therefore the phenomenon of climate change is difficult for traditional legal concepts and mechanisms provided by treaties and customary law (created by a homospheric mentality) because it does not specifically tackle the causes and effects of climate change in a holistic manner; it merely focuses on conceptual sovereign rights that have led to a complex ICCR and statistical emission reductions created by human-centrism. This is reflected in the dichotomy between multilateral cooperation within the FCCC that claims human activities (such as deforestation and fossil fuels consumption) are the main cause of climate change, therefore creating a shared commitment (by all Parties) to take action by acknowledging the reality of climate change. Yet, at the same time, this regime is translated into the traditional international legal principles of the fragmented supremacy of state sovereignty, which continues to mitigate the governance of transboundary pollution from a human-centric perspective. This commitment in the FCCC is therefore rhetorical because even though the FCCC claims that climate change is a “common concern of humankind”, a state doesn’t have an interest to protect the 

20

Chapter Two

planet’s degeneration within the boundary of another state in customary IEL or the Earth as a whole.61 This leads to short term self-interests in the form of neo-liberal economics, which is expressed in human-centric and dualistic thinking rather than Earthcentric and holistic thinking. Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova wrote in the ‘The Road Ahead: Conclusions and Action Agenda’ that: “Beyond the difficulties of trying to fix a failed structure, those arguing for a new approach often note that the existing regime was designed for a pre globalization era, before the full spectrum of worldwide environmental problems was understood and the depth of current economic integration was achieved.”62

If this is the case, how is it possible for solutions to emerge by integrating this type of fragmented thinking into the economic structures that prevent the ICCR from being truly effective?



CHAPTER THREE ‘HUMAN-CENTRIC’ CAPITALISM AND UNSUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH OR ‘EARTH-CENTRIC’ CAPITALISM AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC STABILITY?

Transnational corporations and neo-liberal policies63 in western governments claim that environmental measures will create higher costs and therefore it would make the corporation relocate to another state (that has different environmental measures), thus threatening a state’s comparative advantage. For example, car companies are suing California in order to prevent state legislation from developing higher manufacturing standards.64 However, as Al Gore comments: “Our outdated environmental standards are based on faulty thinking about the true relationship between the economy and the environment. They are intended in this case to help automobiles companies succeed. But as the chart makes clear, it’s the companies building more efficient cars that are doing well.”65

Many of these myopic conceptual legal persons (corporations) have enormous power over a state’s economy and therefore it encourages resistance to Earth centric approaches which nation states think could threaten their sovereign supremacy and economic security. This approach clearly encourages exploitative systems of governance and so economic liberalisation cannot lead to a sustainable ecosystem. Economic liberalisation leads to short term profit maximisation for shareholders, while ignoring negative externalities.

22

Chapter Three

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is only possible when there is Earth-centred regulation at an international level. Without international regulation the goal of profit maximisation will further increase unsustainable production and therefore negative environmental effects. However, if global capitalism did become Earth-centric through international regulation, then it could help develop climate change solutions, thus creating economic stability. As Paul Hawken wrote in The Ecology of Commerce: “The ultimate purpose of business is not, or should not be, simply to make money nor is it a system of making and selling things. The promise of business is to increase the general wellbeing of humankind through service, creative invention and ethical philosophy. Making money is, on its own terms, totally meaningless and insufficient pursuit for the complex and decaying world we live in.”66

The approach of human-centred capitalism continues to encourage a lack of intelligent cooperation among states (because of comparative advantage), thus a refusal by many powerful states to take climate change seriously. Even though President Obama wants to lead on climate change in the United States there are still collective positions in both the Senate and Congress that are against effective action on climate change since its decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2000. This is due to the US reliance upon a fossil fuel economy and the country being one of the largest dealers of fossil fuels and responsible for around 30.3% of global GHG emissions.67. They appear to be threatened by a climate change regime that might restrict their economy. The fossil fuel industry in the US is so powerful that it is able to affect decisions due to its close relationship with governance. As Paul Hawken went on to point out so clearly: “Standing in the way are corporations who want to continue worldwide deforestation and build coal fired power plants, who see the storage and dumping of billions of tons of waste as a plausible strategy for the future, who imagine a world of industrial farms sustained by chemical feed-stock.”68

‘Human-centric’ Capitalism or ‘Earth-centric’ Capitalism

23

The fusion between the fossil fuel industry and state governance is clearly a serious problem for the creation of an international climate change regime, let alone a truly effective one. Therefore, in order to progress we must demand a separation between the fossil fuel industry and governance. However, this is now only possible at an international governance level due to comparative advantage among nation states. Another problem is that developing countries are attempting to industrialise along the same lines as developed countries at a time when the atmosphere can no longer accept a free and unlimited amount of GHG toxicity. This is supported by the idea that developing countries will be more negatively affected by the ICCR and has therefore developed the “common but differentiated responsibilities”69 within the ICCR. Under the regime, each state’s ability to reduce its GHG emissions is considered by the “probable impact on its economy”.70 The economy must be viewed from a holistic and Earth-centric perspective which clarifies the natural link between the ecosystem and economic activity. It is not how the ‘planet’ can benefit the welfare of the global economy but how the global economy can benefit the welfare of the ‘planet’ and thus benefit the interconnected web of life including both ‘humanity’ and all its ‘biodiversity’. It is therefore vital that environmental issues are integrated into the decision making process of global institutions. Human civilization on this planet is inseparable from natural law and the universal whole, and extinction will emerge if we do not recognise this. If we undermine this reality by destroying the very thing that sustains us then we will reverse two million years of evolution on this beautiful Earth, if not more. The neo-liberalist approach to global economics is the most contradictory vision because it believed that individualism and nationalism is only to be used in order to compete against others for economic control and resources. At the same time, neo-liberalism is right about going beyond a collective that blindly conforms to a 

24

Chapter Three

uniform and standardised rule within a nation state and, depending on the state, holds the individual back. However, even though neo-liberalism is right about conformity it isn’t truly possible within a nation state adapting to the unstoppable power of globalisation, happening beyond any political party and national government. This has led to a heartless approach and suppresses anything that has a humanitarian and environmental focus, which could override economic power and control, and in so doing has created serious imbalances that we all face today. Neoliberalism is a superficial ‘ism’ that pointed to a process that was global and couldn’t be stopped. An international humanitarian and environmental movement wasn’t ready to manifest and go above and beyond globalisation — but it is now! We need to begin unification with those that are selflessly helping groups across the world. Over the coming years the escalation of the climate crisis is surely going to challenge this human-centric worldview that is currently expressed as neo-liberalism within global capitalism. The effects of globalization have led to an increase in the number of rules placed upon businesses. However, there is still the need to interconnect the network of organisations at an international level. This should lead to a humanitarian process with ideas from unions, regional authorities, and NGO’s. However, at the present time, the current climate change regime is in part a statistical game of emission targets that provides corporations with the ability to continue profit maximisation over ecological balance and restoration. “We have the capacity and ability to create a remarkably different economy, one that can restore ecosystems and protect the environment while bring forth innovation, prosperity, meaningful work and true security.”72

This climate crisis that has emerged from human activity needs unified answers from the whole of humanity. The ecological process does not acknowledge the human world and climate change is unquestionably now at a global level with irreversible effects. The competitive nature of nation states within globalisation is the

‘Human-centric’ Capitalism or ‘Earth-centric’ Capitalism

25

central issue within this urgent problem and collective action by the whole of the humanity is needed. There are many ideas about the possible solutions and ways in which collective environmental action can work. Multilateral agreements have been put together but their effectiveness is problematic. It is now vital that we look at setting up an International Humanitarian Organization (IHO) for human development and progress, and an International Environmental Organisation (IEO) for Earth governance, to help unify all policies related to solving the climate crisis. The IEO needs to respond to environmental degeneration by creating Earth-centric solutions. John Whalley and Ben Zissimos made a case for a similar idea in ‘Making Environmental Deals: The Economic Case for a World Environmental Organization’: “To internalize externalities at the international level.”73

Global governance now has an influential consensus but it will require collective leadership, scientific practicality and wisdom that will allow us to work together. The IEO and an IHO would have authority at a humanitarian level that goes above global capitalism, helping to unify nation states around Earth-centric policies using the perspective of the humanitarian population. What is needed are Earth-centric mechanisms that are implemented by an international body created by this process, who help developing countries create renewable sources of energy by transcending the old modes of production that Annex 1 states currently maintain. This limits the ability to address the accumulative trends of GHGs and is further impinged by the deceptive nature of the “flexible mechanisms” that are “often labelled by environmentalists as loop holes”.74



CHAPTER FOUR FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS OR DECEPTIVE MECHANISMS?

The Kyoto Protocol has developed flexibility mechanisms (known collectively as the “Marrakesh Accords”, agreed by COP Framework Convention in 2001),75 which are “joint implementation” (JI) (Article 6), “clean development mechanism” (CDM) (Article 12), and “emissions trading” (Article 17); sink projects (Article 3) have also been developed. Joint Implementation is a rule that enables Annex 1 states (developed nations) to meet their obligations by joining with other states in Annex 1, thereby using each other’s domestic efforts to reduce their emissions (Article 3(3), 4(2)(a) in the FCCC). This is also expressed in Article 6 in Kyoto (Article 6(1)) on JI in that Annex 1 states can enhance domestic actions by engaging in “emissions reduction projects in other Annex 1 states”.76 In Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) (Article 12) Annex 1 states can contribute to their targets by “engaging in emissions reduction, afforestation/reforestation projects in non-Annex 1 states”.77 They can also assist non-Annex 1 states in achieving sustainable development (Kyoto Protocol, Article 12(2)). The CDM provides incentives to developed countries and their firms to invest in climate-friendly projects in developing countries, which generate emission reduction credits that can go towards developed country emission targets. With emission trading (Article 17), Annex 1 states can supplement domestic actions by “trading part of their ‘assigned amounts’ to other states” (Kyoto, Article 17).78 For example, if a state has been allocated more emissions allowances than it needs to meet its target then it can sell the surplus allowances to other states that will go to industry within the

28

Chapter Four

domestic legislation. Under “domestic implementing legislation”, private entities are able to take advantage of the “flexibility mechanisms” if they have the approval of their national jurisdiction, this was further “implemented by the Marrakesh Accords”.79 Kyoto also included in Article 3 the idea that Annex 1 countries can get credit for enhancing sinks. Sinks being mainly forest sinks in which carbon credits are available for projects in afforestation, reforestation. The first problem with these mechanisms is that they only make provision for the first “commitment period”, being 2008-2012 in Article 3(9) of Kyoto. Faced with such challenges within the next twenty years, this short term process created under the FCCC and Kyoto seems very unconvincing because even if the Kyoto Protocol did manage to get developed, as a whole, to reduce their GHG emissions with “flexible mechanisms” by at least five per cent by 2008-2012, it still wouldn’t be enough. Therefore, for it to be truly effective all dangerous activities need to be restricted or prohibited with a long term aim before it is agreed to cause serious damage, by putting the “precautionary principle” into full force. However, the traditional approach to trans-boundary pollution law is that activities were not restricted or prohibited until they had been proven to cause environmental damage. Countries have been able to act freely unless there was a causal link between an activity and damage. However, the majority of scientists are now convinced that there is a casual link between GHG emissions and climate change. This should provide an impetus to go beyond the limited approach of emission reductions. Another problem with the “flexible mechanisms” is that projects are fragmented and therefore lack international coordination. This prevents mechanisms having any effect, for example, Scandinavian countries produce effective sink projects and significant reductions in the “utilisation” of GHGs. Brazil cuts down their rainforest (apparently an area the size of Wales each year) and emissions trading excuses Annex 1 countries

Flexible Mechanisms or Deceptive Mechanisms?

29

by allowing excessive emissions to continue while they can claim reductions through exchanging for small reductions in local emissions; for example, a “landfill gas project in Brazil, and a small-scale hydroelectric power project in Honduras”.80 Annex 1 countries therefore continue their extensive fossil fuel consumption, while, for example, Germany facilitates clean power generation in Romania by introducing energy efficiency technologies for the JI project, yet at the same time large commercial interests are excused; “China, US and India significantly increase emissions by expanding their carbon based technology”.81 Thus, the enormity of global environmental destruction engulfs and therefore negates all projects created by the “flexible mechanisms” and “sink projects” making them loop holes for states and corporations to claim their “green credentials” while the climate crisis escalates. These mechanisms could have a significant effect (even though GHGs would still need to be phased out) if the majority of states and corporations universally and simultaneously adopted them in all their economic practices with zeal through an international organisation based on global governance. “One statistic makes clear the demand placed on the Earth by our economic system: every day the worldwide economy burns an amount of energy the planet required 10,000 days (27 years) to create.”82

At the same time, the ICCR clearly has a very complex and sophisticated compliance procedure;83 nevertheless, it does not seem to be effective on overall outcomes. David Victor in his book 'Enforcing international law: implications for an effective global warming regime' argues that the reason for the appearance of high compliance within the ICCR is “shallow co-operation”,84in that the commitments agreed reflect what “countries are already doing and therefore do not encourage behaviour change”85 (human-centric behaviour). He claims we need strong enforcement particularly in the case of global warming by “moving away from a tradable permit regime to pursuing a technological innovation regime”86 in 

30

Chapter Four

the same way that we need to move away from human-centrism to Earth-centrism. How can we begin to reshape the legal framework in order to gain stronger cooperation rather than shallow cooperation and develop creative innovation in technology and commerce in order to phase out GHGs?



CHAPTER FIVE A SOLUTION: A MONTREAL PROTOCOL APPROACH TO GHG EMISSIONS

The Montreal Protocol demonstrated that nations can come together in order to successfully design and implement Earth-centric legislation that is effective. The issue of the hole in the ozone layer took time to enter mainstream consciousness but once it became scientific fact then action was taken. However, within the context of ICCR the corporate elite, media and governments are purposely confusing climate science due to the “amount of investment in fossil fuels”.87 The key issue within the Montreal Protocol was that the phasing out of harmful substances of CFC gases did not require enormous investment or infrastructural changes because it was a relatively small part of the trading process unlike GHGs. CFCs were used to manufacture aerosol sprays, foams and packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants. Research and patents by major corporations into cheaper and alternative substances were already well under way during the 1980s.88 In 1985, the Vienna Convention established mechanisms for international cooperation in research into the ozone layer and the effects of ozone depleting chemicals. The Vienna Convention led to the Montreal Protocol and was negotiated and signed by 24 countries in 1987. The Protocol has led to 186 signatories and calls for the Parties to “phase ‘down’ the ‘use’ of CFCs and the production and consumption of CFCs by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform)”.89 For each substance, the treaty provides a timetable on which the production of those substances must be phased out and eventually eliminated. For

32

Chapter Five

developing countries, it was agreed that they would be given an extended period of time. An international fund was established to help developing countries introduce new and more environmentally friendly technologies and chemicals. Just like the climate crisis, the depletion of the ozone layer is a worldwide problem that does not recognise the borders between countries, and so effectiveness was only possible by “determined international co-operation”.90 The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol provides funds to help developing countries phase out the use of these substances. The fund was the first financial mechanism to be created under an international treaty. Without the Montreal Protocol, the levels of ozone-depleting substances would have been “five times higher than they are today, and surface Ultraviolet-B radiation levels would have doubled at mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere”.91 Since the Montreal Protocol came into effect, the atmospheric concentrations of the most important ozone-depleting substances have either levelled off or decreased. Another issue is that although ozone-depleting substances have clearly been decreasing, evidence shows that the thinning of the ozone layer continues. As mentioned, scientists have recently discovered GHG emissions are also the cause of ozone layer depletion.92 The ICCR must learn from the Montreal Protocol because the innovation that replaced substances was rapid, effective, and economical. The idea that phasing out ozonedepleting substances would reduce the quality and increase the price of goods and services (previously dependent on CFCs) was unfounded. Corporations and governments in the developed countries found that environmental protection did not burden or obstruct productivity, emphasising the fact that it is possible, through sensible cooperation, for economic stability and global environmental protection to be coherent on one level of the trading process. This process of regulating one aspect of production and trading provided an impetus for scientific and industrial progress, which led

A Solution: A Montreal Protocol approach to GHG Emissions

33

to greater international cooperation to protect the global environment. Developing countries also managed to phase out ozone-depleting substances because of the creation of an Interim Multilateral Ozone Fund. This showed that developed and developing countries can work together and share the problem of ozone depletion. Under international regulation and the first simultaneous policy implementation of nation states, the determination by states, corporations, and citizens of the planet resulted in scientific, technological and diplomatic creativity. This success raises the following question: how can we integrate the Montreal Protocol approach into the ICCR? If the Montreal Protocol model includes the phasing out of GHGs (because they are depleting the ozone layer) and Kyoto also focuses on phasing out GHGs, then they would effectively have the same aim. Therefore, developing a new ‘Protocol’ (to phase out GHGs and replace them with new technology) would help solve the climate crisis and therefore reverse the destructive trends of GHG concentration.





CHAPTER SIX RESISTANCE TO A MONTREAL PROTOCOL APPROACH TO GHGS

The limit of a Montreal Protocol approach to GHGs is that there is no “political will” to do it. With Montreal there was “political will” which promoted a scientific consensus that flowed into the media and mainstream consciousness. Public awareness of global warming has become more apparent and people are beginning to move towards renewable sources of energy, eco-friendly products/technology and energy saving approaches. If the majority of people demanded that corporations and governments must commit themselves to a Montreal Protocol approach in the ICCR to phase out the production, utilisation, consumption and disposal of GHGs (within the most realistic time frame), then this amount of international cooperation could succeed in reversing the projected trends. Some corporations have already taken the lead, such as Interface93 and governments in Scandinavia and New Zealand. There are now symbols such as evergreen, falcon and swans appearing on more packages, as a marketing pre-requisite for a certain segment of the market. They show the standards of recycling, re-utilisations and the efficient use of energy and materials by preventing delayed emissions. It is therefore marketing myopia94 for fossil fuel industries to continue to resist change. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and many argue that they are expected to run out within the next fifty years due to peak oil.95 In fact, they need to diversify if they are going to survive the climate crisis.

36

Chapter Six

“Business people must either dedicate themselves to transforming commerce to a restorative undertaking, or march society to the undertaker.”96

From an Earth-centric perspective this change is inevitable; when climate change becomes more holistically noticeable, the scientific argument becomes louder and it becomes more dominant within the mainstream consciousness. When this takes place, the ICCR will have to change from its limited ideas of emission reductions to a full phasing out of all GHG substances. Those governments and corporations that adapt to the pressing changes will survive and prosper and those that remain attached to the old modes will become redundant. Therefore, what can be said for the future of our civilisation if we do not act now? “The ozone depletion by the year 2050 would have been at least 50% in the mid-latitudes in the northern half of the Earth, 70% in the mid-latitudes of the south, about 10 times larger than today. The UV-B radiation would have doubled in the north and quadrupled in the south in the same places. The ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere would have been 5 times larger.”97

 

CHAPTER SEVEN BEYOND A MONTREAL PROTOCOL APPROACH: ‘EARTH GOVERNANCE’ AND ‘EARTH JURISPRUDENCE’

Part of the legal problem that prevents the ICCR adopting a Montreal Protocol approach to GHGs is the ineffective nature of human jurisprudences in the legal systems. Human jurisprudences only look after human interest, disregarding planetary existence. It therefore ignores the ecological perspectives and in doing so human jurisprudence systems that try to protect the ecosystems become ineffective. Human jurisprudence is created from an anthropogenic perspective which means we need to review the thinking process and, as Aldo Leopold states, “learn to think like a mountain”. As Jiddu Krishnamurti so eloquently pointed out: “What is nature? There is great deal of talk and endeavour to protect nature, the animals, the birds, the whales and dolphins, to clean the polluted rivers, the lakes, the green fields, and so on. Nature is not put together by thought, as religion is, as belief is. Nature is the tiger, that extraordinary animal with its energy, its great sense of power. Nature is the solitary tree in the field, the meadows, and the grove, it is that squirrel shyly hiding behind a bough. Nature is the ant and the bees and all the living things of the Earth.”98

People will continue to ‘believe’ that we are above nature and can manage without it. The majority of IELs have shown their limitations (of course, there have been exceptions) due to human jurisprudence. The technology that develops from human jurisprudence hides civilisation’s dependence on the ecosystem that

38

Chapter Seven

continues to ignore environmental degeneration Thus, an increasing number of human-centric IELs within an increasingly complex regime make it appear that environmental degeneration is under control, further enhancing a ‘homospheric’ reality. Earth jurisprudence is based on laws and governances aimed at protecting the wellbeing of the planet and all of its parts, simply because they are a part of the wholeness of the Earth and universe and are therefore beyond the use of human motives; as Thomas Berry puts it, “the Universe is a communion of subjects and not a collection of objects”.99 Cormac Cullinan argues that: “Our governance systems as whole (including laws, institutions, policies and ‘normative regimes’ such a morality) are not delivering the goods and we don’t need more bitter experience to prove this. Therefore, we need to rethink our theories and methodologies, reset our compasses and then reform all aspects of our governance systems accordingly. The precise form that such reforms might take has not yet been determined and will, I hope, engage the minds of many committed and creative people.”100

The legal philosophies and laws propagate the view that the earth is a collection of 'resources' or objects which human beings are entitled to exploit for self-interest. Earth jurisprudence is essential if human society at an international level is to attain the radical shifts needed to save the planet from ecological disaster. As Vandana Shiva stated the “Earth democracy re-contextualises humans as one member of the Earth family.”101 Law is a very influential tool to regulate human behaviour and 'constitute' human societies. This means environmental lawyers, activists and thinkers need to review the principles of legal, policy and theoretical thinking and create new ways in which we organise our activity outside of self-interest and the ‘false premises’ created by the dominant cultures. The challenge is to develop principles of laws and governance practices that will regulate and therefore harmonise human behaviour into the ecosystem. However, this does not mean we will go backwards or lose human ingenuity, but it will mean we will evolve by developing laws that mirror indigenous laws. These laws intelligently replicate the working laws that are inherent within

Beyond a Montreal Protocol Approach

39

nature and the universe, what Thomas Berry called the “Great Jurisprudence”102. “It seems that by looking at how the universe functions, we can discern certain principles of organisation that would be immensely helpful for us to apply to human governance.”103

Contemporary scientific understanding, globalised communication, and advanced technology applied to the Great jurisprudence would generate Earth jurisprudence. Clearly, it would be futile to go back to localised or indigenous activity (although localism has its place as one part of the whole Earth process), but it would also be very imprudent (and dangerous) to stay where we are. Therefore, Earth jurisprudence would help prevent ecological degeneration by integrating creative Earth-centric activity into our globalised and technologically advanced civilisation. This has been expressed by leading scientists, just as Mike Bell in his work ‘Thomas Berry and Earth Jurisprudence’ stated: “In recent years we have seen a convergence of ideas that have emerged from two distinct streams of thought: from the stream of traditional indigenous thinking and from the stream of modern science, specifically what has been called by some, ‘The New Science’.”104

Ecological problems that arise on a worldwide scale make national level responses inadequate, presenting a substantive case for a major overhaul of the IELs that are based on sovereign rights. Therefore, the benefits of having an Earth-centric international body like an International Environmental Organisation (IEO) and an International Humanitarian Organisation (IHO), which go beyond international economic institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Bank, become clear. They could encourage and lead the international economic regime to adapt to Earth-centric approaches, establishing norm-setting procedures at an international level to encourage substructure initiatives, unity and team work from businesses, non-government organisations (NGOs), charities, local governments, and other actors. 

40

Chapter Seven

“All of these seemingly disparate phenomena trace to a single cause – the growing scale of the human enterprise. The rates, scales, kinds, and combinations of changes occurring now are fundamentally different from those at any other time in history; we are changing the Earth more rapidly than we understand it. We live on a human dominated planet – and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase. Humanity’s dominance of Earth means that we cannot escape responsibility for managing the planet.” 105

This must lead to an understanding that the underlying causes of environmental degradation are economic approaches that ignore the so-called externalities, leading to all forms of disorders such as poverty, massive population growth, inadequate technologies and thus the cycle of environmental degradation. We have entered a new period in our relationship with nature where human influences have become so profound. Humanity has had a huge impact on the great life support systems of the planet because we are now collectively, “a force of nature in itself”.106 As Al Gore pointed out: “We are witnessing an unprecedented and massive collision between our civilisation and the Earth.”107

CHAPTER EIGHT TOWARDS A NEW PARADIGM

When Galileo Galilei claimed that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of celestial subjects revolving around the Earth it broke away from conventional knowledge. This eventually led to a new level of understanding and cooperation. Human-centric laws encourage people to believe the myth that we are separate from our environment and thus ‘conquering’ technologies continue to develop, attempting to create a civilisation independent from nature. If Earth-centric laws were encouraged, then people would regard them as part of nature and recognise their dependence on the ecosystem, and more collaborative types of eco-technology would emerge. It is clear that the former lacks intelligence and continues to have a destructive influence in the world, so IELs should start developing Earth-centric strategies in order to develop ecotechnology as a means of social-economic responsibility and international security. It is apparent that a growing human population and self-centred world economy have increased the pressure on our ecosystem. The agricultural land, climate, forests, coastal areas, lakes and oceans have all shown signs of excessive strain and ill-treatment. Some have argued that humanity is far away from environmental constraints but evidence overwhelmingly shows that the environmental capacity to support us is already being exceeded. The simple truth is that a far greater level of international cooperation is needed if humanity is going to survive this crisis. The problem lies in each country’s pursuit of its own interests to gain comparative advantage over other states. This is achieved by a total commitment to economic growth based on the production, utilisation and consumption of natural resources. It is argued that by

42

Chapter Eight

destroying the rainforest within a territory, it leads to a ‘comparative advantage’ by raising exports and therefore gaining short term economic growth. However, this would lead to long term unsustainable economic growth since the rainforest essentially keeps the ecosystem in balance and thus the ecosystem is the foundation of economic growth. The Industrial Revolution defined the competitive nature of the nation state and sovereignty creating classical liberalism.108 However, at the same time it changed the relationship between humanity and nature (developed through the Enlightenment philosophy from Descartes to John Stuart Mill) where human activities were seen as separate from nature. While the perceived idea of separation between humanity and nature led to advancements in certain areas, such as global ‘human’ communications and the expansion of urban infrastructure; in the long term, this unconscious delusion hasn’t allowed the basic ecological conditions of life to continue to thrive on Earth because it enclosed humanity into the homopshere. “Our species has a major governance crisis, and far reaching changes in how we regulate human behaviour are essential for the sake of the Earth and all its inhabitants. A good starting point would be to recognise that our governance systems are still based on the philosophies of Descartes, Bacon and Newton. They saw the universe as a complex machine that we could understand by dissecting and analysing its component parts. Allied to this was the conviction that humans are the rightful owners and masters of this universe of objects, with a right to use it for the exclusive benefit of the human species. This worldview created a barrier between humans and ‘nature’. It also led us into the dangerous delusion that we can disengage ourselves from the fate of the planet and live happily in a human world in which technology can provide all we desire, instead of the Earth providing all we need.”109

The industrialised countries developed their economies over the past one hundred and fifty years in part by treating the atmosphere and natural resources as free and unlimited, and therefore unconsciously generating the great quantities of GHGs.

Towards a New Paradigm

43

We have since become conscious of this process and have become more aware of our interconnectedness with nature through quantum physics, ecology and holistic understanding, such as the Heisenberg ‘uncertainty principle’, David Bohm’s ‘wholeness and implicate order’ observations, Einstein’s ‘theory of relativity’, Ken Wilber’s ‘Integral Theory’, Fritjof Capra’s research into the parallels between ‘modern physics and eastern mysticism’, Peter Higgs’ ‘Higgs Boson particle’, James Lovelocks ‘Gaia hypothesis’ and works by Thomas Berry and Jiddu Krishnamurti, to name a few. We therefore need to act more intelligently and responsibly by going beyond the so-called ‘Cartesian’ period of human evolution that is based on now disproved and false premises. We need to transcend the dysfunctional and outdated modes of production (initiated by these premises) that are now endangering the planet. “Our ethical traditions know how to deal with suicide, homicide and even genocide; but these traditions collapse entirely when confronted with biocide, the extinction of the vulnerable life systems of the Earth, and geocide, the devastation of the Earth itself.”110



CHAPTER NINE NEW POLITICS

Politics takes up so much of our publications and media; politicians seem to dominate our airwaves with slogans and sound bites. For decades, politicians have been repeating the same mistakes over and over again — the same wars, the same financial problems, the same environmental destruction, the same self-interest. The debates are generally centred on position, power, security and money, influencing people’s opinions and decisions. Politics is like a game show, with ceremony, ritual and myths, while the real and pressing problems that we all face together are ignored. It seems we are more interested in the political show itself rather than seriously understanding our collective problems and solving them. Is this because we fear real change and are therefore scared to look? Do we not dare know? Do we not conform and escape from the truth of humanity’s current predicament? Are we not more interested in the ideology than facing the reality? Our politicians repeat the same slogans and ideology and hide the shallowness of their answers, and we accept that. Politicians endlessly manipulate the symptoms and hope to bring about change in our society. Politics in its current form seems to only address the symptoms that keep occurring and escalating; we are absorbed in the ever increasing symptoms. Do we believe this approach will ever succeed? This approach will always lead to the same cycle of failure that has been repeating itself through political history, regardless of ideology and political parties. The outer affects the inner and the inner affects the outer; life is a total cyclic process. The outer and the inner cannot be separated; they are constantly affecting each other. The universe is a whole

46

Chapter Nine

process and does not depend on human-centred politics or economics. It does not function like a game show; it is an intelligent process of growth and renewal, and beyond the authority of the show. It is for this reason that we need to go beyond superficial politics and enter a new political phase based on wisdom, humanitarianism, unity and understanding. Unity does not come about through following any particular authority or through any political ideology; it comes through comprehensive understanding, critical thinking and deep awareness. This awareness goes beyond the conditioning of repetitive slogans and sound bites that are given to us on the airwaves; this understanding is to penetrate into deeper layers of life. Can politicians solve our problems while we remain passive observers rather than active participants? To merely verbalise about change with the same words of freedom, responsibility and fairness is surely just rhetoric for those who want power. Haven't we heard the same words over and over again and yet society stays the same? Can the problems we face be tackled separately without looking deeply into the mind of humanity? While we continue to spin our ideas to solve economic, social and political problems, we compete with each other. While we are competing and debating over ideology rather than understanding through dialogue, there will not be a radical change in the world — a change that is urgently needed for our survival. The ideas we have accumulated will not save us; what will save us is freeing ourselves from the ideology that others have given us and looking, together, at the current problems we face. The current government is only concerned with superficial change, not with understanding the problem deeply. We have given authority to other people and taken it as our own. There cannot be a radical change until we see that the individual and society are one; because without each one of us the society does not exist. The current movement is against the establishment, antiparliamentarian and anti-leadership, but it is fragmented. The anti-

New Politics

47

establishment movements are free to uphold ideas about the principles of the movement but lack power due to internal battles and an inability to formally implement policies. They are based on a divided and competitive approach to collectivism, which has been the approach of most social movements throughout history. There won’t be a radical change until we really see this and in turn fully understand our common unity, becoming active participants in the process of change. We need to move beyond our individual problems and face the challenge as interconnected people. We must begin to consider the whole political and legal structure that is failing to address the ecological crisis. We must consider this particularly complex problem for our very existence. Once political parties are in power, they start off by planning to implement their manifesto policies. However, this will eventually lead to compromise because of the complex interconnection between the lobby groups, who all have different agendas within the global economy. This situation then leads to a level of triviality in relation to the manifesto and a lack of the genuine cooperation required in order to implement the wisest solution; they simply aim at remaining in power within a global economy based on selfinterest. It is only through an international cooperative framework that the existing order can move beyond the current situation. It must begin with dialogue that is beyond separation and be replaced with a holistic wisdom and integral thinking that has united agreement. This positive dialogue will establish practical solutions beyond ideology, creating a shift in people that will manifest in an organisation for humanity as a whole. The international structure demands a level of seriousness beyond theories and needs to observe human activity. We have failed to do this beyond any given authority. We must begin to see that the global crisis is urgent and that people need to move beyond concern for their locality and instead work together on this global ecological crisis.



48

Chapter Nine

Through this observation we can see that, economically, each country is trying to solve its own problems, isolated from the world as a whole. Humanity functions to a large extent in separation and with self-centredness at different levels. This has created thousands of wars and ecological destruction, yet at the same time humanity has also used its intelligence for technological advancement. This situation does not fully apply to all aspects of the current structure for there is no doubt that individual states do achieve some effectiveness. The legal anthropologist E. Adamson Hoebel suggested that the threat of force is the only real power in determining international behaviour. He believed that it is not until there is a force and a threat of force that social control happens in an international community. He also suggested the need for an analysis of the legal structure in the modern world is needed so that it can function within basic hypothesises often overlooked by those within it. He went on to conclude that common values and postulates are where the international community can manifest a social order. There is clearly an inability for nations to see outside of a structure but successful policies are not the result of multilateral or bilateral cooperation between individual states who share common values. They are usually the result of one or more states succeeding economically and achieving relative authority over others. As an example, the differences in the size of Japan and the USA prevent any equal formation of policies in trade or the environment. Therefore, the idea of sovereign supremacy based within customary international law does not contain real sovereignty. State sovereignty is also frail because of the inequality of global economics, which cannot give equal representation to each country. Therefore, real change in the world requires a “higher degree of wisdom and critical thinking” — which is very much like comparing the mental capacity of people like Gandhi and Einstein to that of people like Mussolini and Stalin; one states wisdom, universal compassion and mental clarity, while the other struggles to form a coherent sentence without turning to anger and

New Politics

49

destruction. As Einstein famously said, “you cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it.” Therein is the core problem: we can never expect anything to significantly improve when it is coming from ignorance and self-interest, which in turn will only create the same problems. As long as we remain in competition with each other in relation to solving our collective problems then we will not solve the crisis we all face. Cooperation must transcend beliefs; cooperation depends on the truth, the truth of our collective relationship with each other. .



CHAPTER TEN INSIGHTS INTO COOPERATION

There are five aspects to the process of learning: Quantitative, Qualitative, Practical, Emotional and Direct. Quantitative insight is the process of accumulating information based on measurement, categorisation and labelling to learn and memorise laws, words, symbols and numbers. Qualitative (or Abstract) insight is the process of using Quantitative insight within the memory system in order to use, manipulate and understand complex logical formations in mathematics, philosophy and science. Practical insight uses quantitative and qualitative insights to manifests ‘things’ into existence, for example, engineering or learning to play a musical instrument. Emotional insight is the ability to understand and empathise with human feelings. Finally, Direct insight is the origination and source of all insights before they become crystallised into conditioned and repetitive formations. The first three insights come from external stimuli and are then internalised within the thinking system. Direct insight arises from one’s own inner authority. It wells up, for example, in meditation, when one gazes up at the stars or looks deeply into nature, and it is an unknown dimension, which the mind can understand only in an ‘interpretive’ sense. Clarity arises from Direct insight and from this perspective other insights can be used to express and understand with greater dexterity. The work of so-called ‘geniuses’ like Mozart and Einstein created music and theories from Direct insight, a state that is totally original and beyond time, as Professor David Bohm pointed out; “Creativity is radical discontinuity in a pattern of thought.” 111

52

Chapter Ten

Western thought has become so reliant on external authorities for internal understanding, in that we have given authority to the external stimuli ignoring Direct insight, which blocks genuine creativity. Genuine creativity is vital for human survival; we desperately need to produce new solutions to the crises engulfing humanity, and, as stated in the previous chapter, what Einstein famously said: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

The current approach is generally fragmented, where each issue is seen as existing separately. In order to develop genuine creativity and solutions, we need to bring about originality, rather than conformity. We need to bring about Direct insight and therefore integrate these abstract insights into a synthesis of unified understanding, as Ken Wilber wrote in ‘Sex, Ecology and Spirituality’: “Beyond pluralistic relativism is universal integrals. Pluralistic relativism gives way to universal integralism. Where pluralism frees the many different voices and multiple contexts, universal integralism begins to bring them together into a harmonized chorus.” 112

Direct insight can be applied to the competitive economic system. It’s not a question of right or wrong, as in choosing ‘capitalism over communism’ or vice versa, like it used to be in the twentieth century. Instead, it is more a matter of deciding which is the wisest approach for humanity to take at this stage of its global development, as Professor David Bohm went on to comment: “Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today.” 113

So the question is no longer about capitalism or communism; the question is about the Direct insight of competition or cooperation. Is it wiser to compete or cooperate? While there are competitive elements within nature, humanity being one example, at one level,

Insights into Cooperation

53

the process of life is cooperative. It takes a cooperative process to support the competitive aspects of life. Therefore, cooperation is of a higher order of intelligence, competition being a more primitive part of the evolutionary impulse, as David Korten explains in his book ‘The Great Turning’: “In biological science it is observed that the earliest, colonizing stage of forest-system development is dominated by fast growing, aggressively competitive and transient species that are eventually displaced by the emergence of more patient, cooperative, settled, energy efficient species that define the mature phase.” 114

It takes sunlight, cells, atoms, trees (etc.) working in complete cooperation to produce the apparent competitive environment. This is also reflected in the current economic system, as it takes cooperation within the economic system to produce the competitive market. If one sees this as a Direct insight, then it becomes obvious that life is a completely interconnected process. It is therefore clear that cooperation is a far more intelligent approach than competition. Once this is seen, then it is no longer a matter of debate — just as it is no longer a debate whether the Earth is round or flat. The central premise of the debate has become extinguished in the light of Direct insight. Nations, organisations, institutions, groups and businesses are not separate, independently existing parts. It is this false notion that gives rise to the competitive system. This false notion is causing environmental destruction, systematic failure in economics and disharmony in the world. To be successful as a nation, organisation, institution, group, business and person we need to bring our own practice in line with the Direct insight of cooperation. In ‘Thought as a System’ Professor David Bohm wrote: “I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way ... A corporation is organized as a system – it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately; they only can function together.”115



54

Chapter Ten

To contribute to solutions our motivation needs to make a shift from competing as a means of success, to serving the whole community as a means of success. For instance, a business should ask the question, ‘how can my business help society as a whole?’, rather than ‘how can my business compete with other businesses?’ This approach has proven to be far more effective, not just because it is a good thing to do but because it is the wisest thing to do, whether it is for one’s own success or for the benefit of the whole community. Cooperation is the only way we can improve the quality of life for the whole human race and repair the damage humanity has done to the Earth. We therefore need to work with those who share this Direct insight within a growing integrated network, using all the powers of modern technology, and bring about a cooperative, more intelligent and beneficial society for all. The challenge of the twenty-first century is to evolve the current competitive system into a cooperative one.

CHAPTER ELEVEN THE EARTH, STUPID!

It appears that we are getting closer to a worldview that is about ‘the Earth, stupid’ rather than, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, ‘the economy, stupid’. New qualities are the new successes in this the twenty-first century, where more people are moving beyond the consumerism and status anxiety that defined the era of popular capitalism. It is vital that we move beyond the idea of state socialism and popular capitalism, neither allowing a centralised state, international bank or transnational corporation control over decisions and the people we serve. We no longer need individualism which is just about competing against others for control and resources, nor do we need a collective that blindly conforms to a uniform and standardised rule. A new social democracy must empower each creative, unique and diverse individual to work together and truly help solve our collective and global problems. Governments have a responsibility to maintain a viable life for all people, where rules and accountability are essential for any effective system. Progressive politics and humanitarian thinking must create accountability in order to prevent economic selfinterests that lead to unethical and unsustainable activity. The internet has opened up greater international cooperation, coordination and interconnection between ethical groups across the world — groups that truly care and simply want to work for the right reasons. Progressive policies need to enhance ethical and sustainable trading for a fair deal for everyone. Policies need to ensure companies contribute towards the well-being of all rather than just profit

56

Chapter Eleven

maximisation for the few. This approach once again has proven to be far more effective for the benefit of the whole community. The exponential growth of new technologies has led to the development of a global community that produces and exchanges goods and services. This is transforming industry and the social behaviour of civil society. This has also led to collective knowledge-building projects with innovative initiatives. Research shows that in some areas ethical and social entrepreneurs/businesses have been more successful during the recession than aggressive competitors. It appears that ‘survival of the fittest’ now depends on cooperation and ethics and not narrow self-interests. It is therefore vital that ethics and cooperation become the new authority in the world, rather than just power politics and profit maximisation. A new social democracy must move beyond the rigid, centralised systems that lead to control and conformity and into a society that uses the openness of global interconnection, where the fullest development of every individual creates a society of equals. We need each individual to actively develop an ethical, wiser, more positive and intelligent world, a world that allows us to truly ‘live and enjoy life’ beyond strife. Capitalism has to submit to this new authority in the world; a world of ethics, transparency, cooperation and a wiser and participative democracy. We cannot allow capitalism to take precedence; we need an ethical economy that is not just about encouraging more and more growth at any cost. We need to evolve the old systems of control that led to the capitalism/communism dichotomy and into a more free-flowing system, utilising a better balance of cooperation and free enterprise. We need to end policies that support the selling of weapons around the world, this is clearly not a progressive policy; it is far more progressive to put investment in technology that advances global peace and sustainability. We must make fair trade the accepted norm and not just some fringe gesture, moving food production beyond monoculture and industrialised farming and into the cooperative model. We must

The Earth, Stupid!

57

move beyond oil dependency, regulate CEOs that continue to receive huge financial bonuses based on bottom line profit margins, and we need to make sure that we have a living wage so that all the people can live a decent standard of living. The lack of truly progressive political and humanitarian thinking in the world has led to the global economic and environmental crises that we all face today. It is therefore vital that we have a truly progressive movement that embraces global, ethical and ecologically sustainable policies and that we unite with other progressives from across the world. We need an international progressive alliance through an International Humanitarian Organisation (IHO) and International Simultaneous implementation to have authority above international capitalism and the international institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. The IHO would and cannot be a form of some utopian or dystopian world government that has a global political authority as a single global state for the whole of humanity. This approach is not based on inherent unity but would be an expansion of a global individuality coming from one fragment overriding all others. This approach would lead to violence and conflict or world domination. An IHO could develop an executive, legislature and judiciary within a constitution that has an international jurisdiction but this could only develop from a people centred and network base approach coming of humanity working together in a free association approach and not as a form of a fixed power authority. The structure of the WTO could be a mirror for the structure of an IHO but with focus on humanitarian policies above economic policies. The WTO is a very clear, effective and rational structure, but lacks the ethics and wisdom of an IHO. We need international ethical laws that bind all countries to the same legal and economic responsibilities based on fairness, transparency, ethics, peace and human development, beyond purely anarchistic economic motives. 

58

Chapter Eleven

International power-struggles have to be replaced by international cooperative systems with ethical rules. We need participation based on interdependence, rather than nations reacting and preserving self-interests. We need to encourage participation over competition, and participation should be equal across all nations and organisations, with no double standards; all parties should have equal decisions and therefore equal obligations and responsibilities. The challenge in changing the world for the better will require a tremendous effort by all of us. We all have the potential to represent the ‘heart and mind of humanity’, and it is those people who have ‘the heart and mind’ to recognise the need for a foundation of change in the world. In a world where neo-liberal economics allows half the world to live on less than $2 dollars a day (United Nations), less than 1% of what the world spends every year on weapons is all that is needed to put every child into school by the year 2000, and yet it doesn’t happen (New Internationalist). 20% of the population in developed nations consume 86% of the world’s goods (UN Development Programme), facts that mean we cannot remain complacent any longer; we can no longer blindly support a world economy based on self-interest.

CHAPTER TWELVE OBJECTIVITY

We all need to take a step back from the climate change situation and look at the problem objectively. The conclusion is clear that the ‘concept’ of emission reductions under the current paradigm is an error of judgement since every car, plane, factory etc., the whole industrialisation process, is constantly ‘adding’ to the already high and lethal concentration of greenhouse gases. The crisis can only be tackled by phasing out greenhouse gases altogether (like the Montreal Protocol did with CFCs) rather than tinkering with the symptoms such as through behavioural change and taxation. The magnitude of the climate crisis is totally beyond the current system’s ability to solve it. The gap between the systems within civilisation and the climate crisis is huge. There is much talk about the ‘urgency of action’ but we are clearly enclosed within a complex system that puts economic factors above the very thing that sustains us; thus it is preventing immediate and essential action. It is now clear and obvious that we need to phase out greenhouse gases and replace them with (already developed) eco-technology. This still appears unrealistic within the current systems but the urgency of change is already immediate. We are allowing these systems (that humanity has created) to take precedence over ‘life saving’ solutions. How can we allow this crisis to happen just for the sake of customs and concepts? These solutions will take place sooner or later (if not too late) when all other approaches (within the systems) have failed. We need to campaign for a full phasing out of greenhouse gases and develop an International Humanitarian Organisation (IHO) and International Environmental Organisation (IEO) with a global action plan for ethical and environmental regeneration with immediate and emergency action, before it

60

Chapter Twelve

becomes too late. It is time to put aside our complacency and old habits and seriously tackle the enormity of the crisis (that we all face together) as a top priority. This overwhelming scientific evidence of a direct and irrefutable link between greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and climate change must now be urgently addressed as an emergency if we want to survive as a species. Global problems require global solutions and it is within this context that the most pressing sustainable development issue is the inadequate level of international cooperation to solve climate change. The constant accumulation of emissions caused by the excessive production and utilisation of natural resources in both developed and developing countries prevents effective mitigation efforts within the International Climate Change Regime (ICCR). Clearly we live on one planet and therefore ecological degeneration cannot be solved just within the context of nation states. At the present time there is a huge disparity between the levels of multilateral cooperation and the rate of ecological degeneration. From this observation, the fact that the ICCR is still only aiming at a 60% cut in emissions by 2050 is clearly totally ineffective because of the rapid rate of ecological degeneration now evident. The customary international laws that affirm the sovereign right of states to manage their own natural resources (as stated in Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration) is also totally ineffective. Deforestation and greenhouses gases released in one state will affect, without doubt, other states (or areas of the global commons) and therefore this fundamental issue must be deeply and directly examined, understood, addressed and solved.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMANITARIAN GOVERNANCE

The Earth has taken ‘billions of years’ to achieve ecological balance between all life forms that co-exist on it. Within the past hundred and fifty years of industrialisation, humans have managed to introduce levels of greenhouse gases that the Earth just can no longer handle. As stated, we are all aware of the destruction of the Earth’s rainforests and the exploitation of the planet’s natural resources, which have led to the increase in global temperatures, extreme weather patterns and the melting of the ice caps. We therefore need global governance that can respond to these growing problems affecting more than one state. It is from this perspective that political integration at an international level must manifest in the form of global governance. The current structure of global governance has limited authority to enforce compliance. Global governance does not mean world government and currently national governments have sovereign power within its own boundary with the ability to use force and diplomacy. Albert Einstein, Gandhi and Winston Churchill have all called for steps towards federal world government. The Atlantic Charter attempted to be a consensus that was made into statement issued on 14 August 1941 between the United Kingdom and the United States. This blueprint aimed for a world government after World War II in order to create universal international agreements. This Charter did lead to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the foundation for the creation of the United Nations.

62

Chapter Thirteen

However, global governance at present time is only used as a word for the process of communication and agreement to solve global problems and make international trade effective. The increase in interdependence urgently needs new laws and regulations at a level that transcends national fragmentation. At the moment global governance does not exist as a singular system and there is concern that globalization has reduced the power of nation states. However, this is partly the reason why national regulations are no longer effective. The increase in the environmental crisis has led to a greater battle over standards in trade and its relationship to the environment. International standards are demanded by civil society and so many people now believe the solution must be a system of international governance based on regulating capitalism. This emerging perspective of global governance comes from the clear recognition that developments can only take place at a global level. In its White Paper on European Governance the European Commission said that better global governance draws on the same set of shared challenges humanity is currently facing and the challenges can be summed up by a series of goals: sustainable development, security, peace and equity. The process of multilateral integration using international governance to solve global problems is usually a process of bureaucracy, for example the United Nations, the European Union, the International Criminal Court, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. This leads to an inability to enforce compliance despite the expression of a humanitarian position. Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is recognised as a conclusive statement of the sources of international law, which requires the court to apply, (a) international conventions "expressly recognized by the contesting states", and (b) "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accept "the general principles of the law recognized by civilized nations". As it is states that, by consent, determine the content of international law, sub-paragraph (d) acknowledges that the Court is entitled to refer to "judicial decisions" and the most highly qualified juristic writings "as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law".

International Environmental and Humanitarian Governance

63

Therefore, the task now is to focus on the method, goal and practical implementation. This focus can lead towards notable and effective ideas which exist outside of our current limited thought system, with humanity coming together and reflecting on a global process of dialogue and systematic implementation. The measurement of this process is the attempt to convey ethics on the overall development of humanity. The task of the philosophical leader is to create the possibility of accomplishing problems through practical implementation beyond the interpretation of thought systems and observe the present as it actually is. The current situation on international governance is seen from the perspective of globalization, with this simultaneously increasing our global interdependence unlike the existing idea of an individual entity such as a nation state. A national government is a political body that has authority over a population, whether democratic or totalitarian, and therefore stops any external political institution that aims to have authority combined with the ability to enforce their decisions on national sovereignty. An example was the Brexit referendum success in the United Kingdom whereby the UK left the European Union (EU) because the citizens voted to leave due to a belief that the European Union had too much power. This is what the sources of international law have used to indicate that there is no predominant political authority, but instead the international political authority is the development of international policy and regulation through multilateral agreement. International organisations such as the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly are an additional source of international law. However, Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is based on the corresponding provision of the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. This points out that the role of international organizations, in the provision of Article 38(1) is no longer valid. International solutions do not always require an international organisation but instead building a consensus between both nations 

64

Chapter Thirteen

and different transnational actors. This consensus emerges out of developing norms and practices in customary international laws. A certain organization can often be given a leading place on particular issues through multilateral agreements, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). The current structure is consensusforming in order to create agreements that affect national governments, banks and corporations. However, globalization is a significant reason for the declining power of national governments because national policy and regulation do not work effectively even at a national, regional or local level. The emergence of climate change has also increased the need for international governance that can create fast and effective multilateral agreements. However, this has created a dichotomy between civil society and international governance due to bureaucracy. This dichotomy has prevented the homogenization of the public and private spheres, where even though climate change is a major concern and is at crisis point, international negotiations do not have the support of institutional arrangements. The peremptory norm (jus cogens) overrides all other sources of international law, including The Charter of the United Nations. In Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties it states that: "A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character." This is similar to the network of institutional arrangements that are only constructed to deal with the international equivalent of national governments for a short space of time. This is also the same for the stakeholders and shareholders’ economic interests, which affect the national economic situation. This leads to a lack of

International Environmental and Humanitarian Governance

65

sanction-and-control measures. The Rome Stature in 1998 led in 2002 to the International Criminal Court, which in turn created a judicial barrier for the emergence of a centralised federal Europe. This being the case the development of legal criteria is not simply down to the process of global institutions but is the formulation of national objectives, such as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the Kyoto Protocol, among decisions by national governments. This articulates the inadequacy of institutions when they do not have support amongst governments, nor the national population’s consensus. This has created a gap between the urgent need for international governance and the absence of an authority to take necessary action. This has also been upheld by the national states comparative advantage on economic control that goes above environmental policies that are truly effective. A single international governing organisation with the powers to enforce policy is non-existent. Although international organisations exist, they do not have any authority. It is without international regulation with respect to social and environmental externalities then neo-liberal capitalism becomes an uncontrollable mechanism for the few that are creating global chaos. This means we need an international governance based on the ability to create democratic legitimacy at an international, national and local level. This was attempted after World War II but failed due to state sovereignty, in a general sense, having been influenced by the emergence of globalisation after the 1960’s. We now need an international democratic sovereignty based on citizens across the world, in which citizens will be at the centre of policy development at an international level, and in doing so, we will create a real global village. The exponential growth of global communication has influenced civil society where collective knowledge and peer reviewed thinking, such as Creative Commons and the digital democracy, are 

66

Chapter Thirteen

interconnecting across the world. These mechanisms are linking people up who are on the same hymn sheet. Interdependence among nation states is now only one part of the global relationship mechanism. We now have initiatives that produce ideas based on cooperative control and the self-organization of networks within civil society, using digital technologies that communicate with free association in order to share information, have online dialogues and develop consensus driven solutions. This also involves working with universities, local volunteers and NGO’s. The World Parliamentary Forum and the World Social Forum are the beginning of examples on how they have developed into global organisations. Democratic legitimacy at the global level needs this mass development of representative and direct mechanisms, where decision-making is made through citizen’s participation. This should happen at a local, national and international level, which holds together a democratization for the 21st Century and opens up to all citizens worldwide. The aim of the movement cannot be realised just through explaining ideas and influencing current institutions. The movement must now continue with the vision of moving power into a global network that benefits everyone internationally. International Governance must therefore be an organisation for all the people, an International Humanitarian Organisation. This provides a clear assessment on international problems that are now different from conventional thinking in international politics. This book has so far identified four significant mechanisms that fall within the legal, political, economic and social spheres, which, if harmonised, would create global solutions. International governance within an IHO and IEO must implement simultaneous international policies, working together to endorse, sign and ratify both the Earth Charter and ‘Ecocide’.116

International Environmental and Humanitarian Governance

67

This would be a declaration of international laws and fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society for the twenty-first century, endorsed by thousands of organisations and institutions. They would put environmental and humanitarian issues at the centre of international law and begin to truly mitigate climate change from an Earth-centric perspective. It could allow for educational projects to be integrated into national jurisdictions. This would help develop wise and integral education, working together on the sustainable development process and therefore creating education that encourages people to live wiser and happier lives, instead of just more ‘profitable’ ones. The Charter, like the Earth Charter in international law, could be governed by those who have developed the wisdom and holistic understanding of Earth-centred problems, and would create the necessary foundations to develop an International Humanitarian Organisation (IHO) and International Environmental Organisation (IEO), which would give humanitarian and environmental issues priority in the international decision-making process. At present, global governance based around environmental policy does not exist. The IEO currently could be seen as the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which was created in 1972. However, it is fragile and fragmented, which only offers a very limited scope. An IEO would instead be holistic and overarching over economics and trade to protect the environment. Within the power structures there is little support for anything that could limit free-market forces. They believe that somehow it will correct the problem through technological advancement. It is now clear that free-market capitalism is incapable of solving the climate crisis. Without proper international regulation and with overpowering wealth with less and less it will simply get worse. However, an IEO and IHO would be able to encourage and develop an economic process that would lead to the global investment in renewable energy and eco-technology, and allow the adaptation of renewable energy and eco-technology to become cross-cultural and transnational. 

68

Chapter Thirteen

This would begin the global process of phasing out the production and utilisation of greenhouse gases. The creation of an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), linked to the IEO, could allow the development of research and oversee the technical process. The IRENA would therefore allow renewables and eco-technology to become a global and universal priority and develop a transnational distribution of energy like the telecommunications sector does with the distribution of traffic. The IEO could also be interlinked with an International Ethical Council (IEC), the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation, and a World Environment Court (WEC) that monitors and regulates unethical and ecological destructive behaviour, including the continual production of greenhouse gases by national and international actors. Renewable energy is so vital for our international security; after all, it is ultimately a security issue for all life forms. It is unbelievable that even though such technology exists, the international community are so slow to push forward and universally adopt these life-saving solutions. While it is true that governments have so much pressure from the petroleum industry, and there are many economic factors connected to this pressure, at the same time the renewable industry has enormous economic potential which could unleash, and perhaps renew, the global economic situation. The current concept of a 60% cut in emissions by 2050 is better than nothing; however, once again, as stated, scientists now agree that even an apparent 90% cut by 2050 would also be hugely ineffective and fail to prevent dangerous climate change. When people, nations and corporations put their own financial interests first, regardless of the consequences, then they put the whole Earth community at risk. Economic balance and accountability is one thing, but such unrestrained financial pursuit at the expense of the Earth’s environment and resources is clearly myopic, not to mention catastrophic. We have to know when to draw the line, and when we start to destroy the very thing that sustains the lives of millions of species, including ourselves, we have crossed that line.

International Environmental and Humanitarian Governance

69

Even though the Kyoto Protocol was ratified and progress has been made since then, without the support of the United States and China, it is still projected to fall significantly short of achieving the necessary targets that are required to reverse the deteriorating environmental situation — and time is running out! The urgency of action is already immediate and therefore governments should be already making a swift transition to a more secure, sustainable renewable energy economy, with the assistance of an authority from a democratic international ethical body (IEB). The proposed IEB with an IHO, IEO, IEC and IRENA would develop the necessary regulatory frameworks for the universality of renewable energy and eco-technology, which would phase out the process of greenhouse gas production and utilisation. It is now clear that the concept of emission reductions under the current paradigm is ineffective, since it is fragmented into national jurisdiction and, as mentioned, every car, plane, factory, and the whole industrialised process, is constantly ‘adding’ to the already high and lethal concentration of greenhouse gases. The crisis can only be tackled by ‘phasing out’ greenhouse gases altogether (like the Montreal Protocol did with ozone depleting substances) in a unified approach in order to replace them with renewables and eco-technology. This can also only be achieved with the development of the international regulatory framework within the proposed IEO and IRENA that has authority over economic institutions. For the past thirty years’ scientists have been warning us about the effects of environmental destruction and still there has been no significant action by the international community. As already mentioned, the Kyoto Protocol is so far the best attempt; however, some countries like the United States and China, who are responsible for the largest levels of greenhouse gases in the world, still refuse to make the necessary commitment due to competitive power. They do not join the rest of the world in an effort to help 

70

Chapter Thirteen

secure our future, even though the President of the USA is clearly in favour of it. The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 are the main vehicles for global environmental improvements but they still remain limited approaches to environmental mitigation. They lack the authority to regulate economic activity, due to the current international trade laws created by GATT and facilitated by World Trade Organisation (WTO). The establishment of an IEO and IHO would allow authority above these institutions and would unify global resources and act as a vehicle for securing international cooperation and international resource coordination, and therefore allow symbiotic relationships and transnational benefits.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN URGENCY

It is often difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the climate crisis and one could argue that it is totally beyond humanity’s ability to solve it. The gap between the human-centred systems within civilisation and the climate crisis is huge. There is much talk about the ‘urgency of action’ but we are enclosed within a complex human-centred system that will always put economic factors above the very thing that sustains us, thus preventing immediate and essential action. If we continue to see the environment as an externality, rather than the very thing that sustains our existence, then we are surely heading for disaster. The Earth is the foundation from where all humans get their subsistence. The economy relies on the Earth’s ecological stability to supply us with what we need, and if this is taken away then there will be no profits made at all. As a race we have landed on the moon, cracked the DNA code, and created the microchip, to name but a few achievements. Yet, when it comes to renewable energy sources, there is so much resistance to the universal adoption of them. In most countries there seems to be a stalemate between the people who are waiting for the politicians to do something, the politicians who are waiting for the people in civil society to change their behaviour and demand change in a unified manner, and the corporations who are waiting for signs that changes will be commercially viable. We need to develop a symbiotic relationship with the Earth and end the parasitic one that has evolved over the past few hundred years. It is not how the Earth can benefit the welfare of the global economy but how the global economy can benefit the welfare of the Earth, and thus benefit the interconnected web of life including both

72

Chapter Fourteen

‘humanity’ and all its ‘biodiversity’. If we care for the Earth, then the Earth will care for us, and therefore as stated we must phase out greenhouse gases and replace them with (already developed) renewables and eco-technology as a global emergency. We are allowing post World War systems (that human-centred thinking has created) to take precedence over ‘life-saving’ solutions. After World War Two, the pre-war international system was largely replaced by a new world order with the creation of the United Nations, NATO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the General Agreement in Tariff and Trades (GATT). This world order was created to allow economic stability and growth between nations, and therefore prevent future World Wars. However, to what extent can this order usefully serve today’s very different world? Many proposals have been made on the reform of the current international institutions but most have been blocked by the lack of political will, resistance to change and internal conflicts. We need a global discussion and movement on this subject in order to discover the ways these institutions can be reformed and the areas where they have outlived their purpose. It is understandable that these solutions may seem radical from our current perspective, but if one could imagine how the proposal of the United Nations and the European Union (EU) would have been viewed before and during the Second World War, then it is easier to see the possibility of these changes. After the Second World War, Europe was forced to work together and rebuild a modern European Union (EU); this interdependence ended the possibility of war between these democratic nations. The United Nations has 193 member states out of the 196 nations with an aim to use international law for international security, economic development, human rights, social progress, and international peace. In the same way, the current global problem is creating greater interdependence between humanity; we need to work together and create a unified and systematic approach. This would break down many divisions that are currently causing so many of the problems

Urgency

73

in the world; on this global issue, at least, we need to work together and march forward as a team — together as one people, one world and one humanity. The institutions proposed could be tied together under the umbrella of the United Nations, if not under an International Representative Council (IRC), that have transnational elections within nations. The function of these institutions could be thrashed and worked out by groups, organisations, committees and communities across the world through international communication, coordination and cooperation, which would transcend and include the national democratic process. There is a lot to be discussed, shaped and organised in order to make it into a reality. It would begin a process whereby an international ethical authority would be created by people, groups, and organisations from the humanitarian sector, working together in shared interest, which would eventually go above and beyond powerful economic selfinterests. This process would replicate the workings of nature, in that the parts begin to pattern together into greater complexity, organisation, and self-regulation, and eventually create a systematic and harmonised whole (known as holons). Sovereign nations that do encourage multilateralism are still held back by competition, and formal interdependence between countries is still not world centric. This is more like a world federation in which power resides with the competition between national governments. The nearest thing we have to an IHO is the International Red Cross that developed in the same way in response to the suffering during times of war. The Red Cross developed virally in that action swelled up from the compassion of people, which led to global action. This is not as far-fetched as people may think. It will happen eventually when conditions change, problems continue to escalate across the world and global awareness becomes clearer. There are now discussions taking place on the establishment of a United 

74

Chapter Fourteen

Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). The Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly began in 2007, but the body itself would have limitations because it would still be locked within the existing framework for political interactions between nation states with a global economy. This is the same problem the European Union has faced. There is also the idea of democratic globalization towards global democracy and world citizens, but this also does not override competition between nation states. Democratic globalization aims at creating democratic global institutions and changing international organisations controlled by world citizens. The movement is still within a process that lacks systematic change with no organisational procedure or expertise. It is still based around a thought system based on a level of fragmentation. The idea that a limited number of democratic global institutions in charge of a few crucial fields of common interest would fail to achieve real and effective changes because they will always be negated by a global economy based in competitive self-interest. Therefore, the long-term goal of these institutions becoming a democratic world government cannot happen without a process that goes beyond nation states from the very beginning. An IHO is based on scientific practicality, wisdom and our inherent unity beyond nation states. The Global Justice Movement and other similar movements aim at protests and petitions to create intervention and humanitarian aid. This only tinkers around the edges because it is just waiting for current international institutions and national governments to change or even decide to end the selfinterested corporations. This is clearly impractical thinking that does not require humanity to be practically working together in a way that has never been seen before. There is the idea of the International Simultaneous Organisation (Simpol) that aims at getting civil society to strategically use national democracy in order to get all governments to simultaneously implement policies beyond destructive competition. This clearly has great potential but it can only function if it is in alignment with a humanitarian organisation that sits outside the

Urgency

75

already established democratic institutions. This is because it will need another unified momentum and force that goes beyond fragmentation for it to work. This is acting within a conflicting system that has numerous areas of self-interests. There will be numerous benefits for all nations by developing an IHO and IEO. These could eventually evolve into an International Representative Council (IRC) that would focus solely on protecting the Earth and humanity as a whole, which transcends and includes nation states. Primary among these ideas is that all countries can now commit to a shared purpose and direction of international peace and cooperation. For this to emerge, people across all nations have to begin to see that they share the same interests and objectives across national boundaries. Currently, a large amount of problems that current transnational cooperation cannot solve, are in existence. Going beyond individual countries' is a permeant problem for all multilateral endeavours. We therefore need the emergence of a global thinking, where we organically see that all nations and peoples should cooperate and work together instead of being occupied with national motives. The distance is no longer a barrier and communication is now globally real time. Therefore, a unified global community with increased speed is transforming social networks into social change. Humanity has transcended its locality and is now part of a complex network across cities, nations and the whole world. However, it is still fragmented within the interconnections of existing clusters that have their own thought systems. Humanity is also segmented within macroeconomics and sociological influences. At this point in humanity’s history, this is the most important thing of all. It is imperative that we stand together and face our challenges as integrated, diverse and united people. As ‘wisdom and vision’ are imperative to this role, I really see, think and feel that these solutions will take place sooner or later (if not too late) when all other approaches (within the current systems) have failed. We need wise, courageous and collective leadership that will argue for and work with others to campaign for these changes. We need a 

76

Chapter Fourteen

mandate to lead us together and not fear these global challenges. We cannot allow this crisis to happen just because we remain attached to the current systems and refuse to adapt. We need to campaign for a full phasing out of greenhouse gases and develop a global action plan for environmental regeneration immediately, before it becomes too late. It is time to put aside our complacency, differences and old habits and seriously tackle the enormity of the crisis (that we all face together) as a top priority. We need this new protocol comparable to a global action plan that will bring together intelligence from science, engineering, psychology, commerce and ecology in order to urgently develop radical alternatives that harmonise all anthropogenic (in particular economic) activity into the ecosystem. This needs to be implemented in a similar way to the ICCR but based on Earthcentric solutions that will create long term environmental and economic sustainability for all. It is time to look at this seriously, in a holistic way, without self-interest and by observing the facts, beyond ideological concepts about it; in the same way one would observe a faulty engine in order to fix it. A team of engineers can only be truly effective if they work together by understanding the actuality of the engine rather than conflicting over ideas about it. “Our perception is not only with the eyes, with the senses, but also with the mind, obviously the mind is heavily conditioned. So intellectual perception is only partial perception, yet perceiving with the intellect seems to satisfy most of us, and we think we understand. A fragmentary understanding is the most dangerous and destructive thing.”117

Technologies for eco-friendly production, transportation and biodegradable amenities, together with renewable sources of energy, have yet to be implemented by governments and corporations. Those who formulated the ICCR have not developed any mechanisms that systematically capitalise on, and implement this advanced technology. What is holding us back? The danger is clear. The international community is aware of the problem and yet effective action is not being taken; governments continue to pander to the fossil fuel industry.

Urgency

77

They advertise their ‘green credentials’ but clearly do not want to change the status quo, for to do so would seem to destroy their profit margins. We have the intelligence and the technology to implement these changes and at the same time this serious problem is getting worse day by day, even though the solutions exist. It is obvious that those in power do not have the political will because they are conditioned by the outlined human-centric premises and Enlightenment philosophies that emerged from the start of the seventeen century onwards. These out-dated ideological paradigms continue to support this neo-liberal thinking and thus economic self-interests: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”118

This being the case, we need to urgently evolve society into a more intelligent system by creating this international ethical body in response to the current economic crisis. This will start a situation where the wise and social entrepreneurs work with NGOs and charities in order to help develop an organic economy, in which goods are produced and distributed by the community using all the powers of modern technology while still allowing for the innovation of the entrepreneurial spirit. This is already bearing fruit in the Transition Town movement and Integral movement. We need to align these movements with the freedom of the individual so that each expresses his/her own creativity within a spirit of unity. There has not been one movement that has successfully united all people because each one comes from a thought system. This leads to fragmentation and this separation is used to create a political disadvantage to the opponents; it also leads to limited progression because of opposing forces. We need to develop a solution where unique and diverse parts work together for the whole, rather than each part fighting against the other part for control and domination. If we do this, we will move beyond the rigid, centralised system that leads to control and conformity and the hedonistic self-seeking individualism that leads to alienation. This will evolve the old systems that led to the capitalist/communist dichotomy, into a more 

78

Chapter Fourteen

free-flowing system utilising a better balance of cooperation and enterprise. Private enterprise should be left to do what it does, in so far that it does not produce negative effects on the welfare of the whole community. Contraventions should be monitored and acted on by the whole humanitarian community in law. Economics needs to be balanced by ethical laws, limiting working hours, balancing prices with the minimum wage, so that people can continue to live within the consumerism and production process without work becoming too much. There needs to be neither excessive consumerism (as in just for the sake of economic growth) nor lack of production and consumerism that would stop the human progress and freedom which is necessary. The energies of cooperation and enterprise would be balanced by a feedback loop that empirically observes the effects on people’s lives and the environmental constraints, so that we are constantly adapting and therefore leading to more advanced, efficient, natural, and sustainable eco-production for the welfare of the whole. If we can change our focus from economics being about growth to a focus on economics creating a happier and healthier society instead, then we can use this as a yardstick to keep us on track. This feedback loop would introduce legal and economic responsibilities based on fairness, transparency, ethics, peace and human development. It would create a new level of capital and prevent over consumption and production. The balance would produce a process of trial and error, awareness, sensitivity and observations between the process of consumption and production. It would allow free enterprise to be, but at the same time it would not allow free enterprise to become unethical by exploiting workers and damaging the Earth community due to narrow self- interests, whether individual, local or national, for profit maximisation at the expense of the welfare of all. This could evolve towards the wise democracy outlined, where we elect the free individuals who act of

Urgency

79

their own intelligence and deep wisdom, and who encourage others to do the same. A sensible democracy would eventually always choose wise leaders. It is from this perspective that there are many problems in the world today all converging into a set of challenges that conventional thinking is simply not capable of addressing.





CHAPTER FIFTEEN FRESH AIR

It is time to breathe some fresh air into our failing system. We need decisions made by free individuals — by those who truly care about society as a whole and have been working in humanitarian and charity sectors. We need to go beyond the lines that define and divide us. We need to go beyond individual egos, petty politics and selfish, short-term policies, and instead resolve our differences through the constructive nature of the human spirit. It is also time to introduce ethical authority into our politics that can eventually evolve above the current power structures. It will continue to strengthen and build a truly effective and transformative global ethical movement. In so doing, we can finally eradicate failing practices and implement real ethical change for the welfare of the whole Earth community. Humanity has become so dependent on fossil fuels in order to sustain civilisation that attachment to this resource (as a result of commercial interests) has reached critical levels of resistance, despite all signs of danger. It is significant to acknowledge that those who have the most investment and have gained the most (so-called) power from this resource are the ones most reluctant to acknowledge the reality of climate change. This raises the following question: can we afford to wait for such people to get on board until it is too late? These people are only a minority of the human population and every human is part of the planet; we all breathe in the air, receive the sunlight and walk on the ground, and, in essence, should all have an equal interest and responsibility for the welfare of the planet, regardless of one’s apparent status and position. If these people

82

Chapter Fifteen

refuse to get on board and continue to commit ‘crimes against the planet’ then the majority of people will be forced to go beyond them by simply leaving them behind. The ICCR has become a process of technocratic limitation that moves away from the reality of the situation. While state sovereignty and transnational corporations side-line any threat to the fossil fuel industry, the international technocrats have become absorbed in this regime of statistical emissions reduction that has no effect on real outcomes. The international community fails to prevent environmental destruction because the dominant states have established jurisprudence based on these false premises mentioned, created by a mechanistic and dualistic understanding of nature.119 Cormac Cullinan points this out directly: “Many of us, particularly lawyers, have been trained to rely virtually exclusively on logic and to think in a manner that values deduction, differentiation and the division of concepts into categories over more lateral, integrated and systemic thinking that tends to focus on relationships.”120

The output of GHGs continues to increase and therefore governments and corporations are playing a statistical game to allow the trading process not to be altered. This threatens the future of life on this marvellous Earth. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we also unite the principles of customary international law relating to a country’s sovereign territorial rights with the need to protect the global environment. We need to move beyond the situation in which there is ‘my idea’ and ‘your idea’ and a resulting conflict between us over our ideas; rather we need to look at the problem together. The monetary system and ignorance are interconnected; the ignorance of humancentrism has produced our competitive/ monetary system, in the same way that ignorance produced the idea that the world is flat. We therefore need wiser education, which helps with the development of wisdom and Earth-centred observation rather than just more productive workers. In doing so, wouldn't that produce a

Fresh Air

83

wiser system in itself? An ethical economy comes about as a natural result of wisdom and intelligence. In truth, there are no systems outside of the people. Thought creates the system and the system creates thought, it is a totally interconnected and cyclic process. We are born into the world and the mind is conditioned by it, but what is the origination of the conditioning? It is the collective human mind where the inner and the outer are one process; they are constantly influencing each other, as Krishnamurti said, “You are the world and the world is you”. The state of our mind affects the world and the world affects the state of our mind. The failure of the monetary system is not going to change without wise leadership and a humanitarian movement promoting wise education and peace in the world. Many wise leaders have emerged within the competitive monetary system, such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Robert Kennedy, and there were many ignorant leaders before the monetary system came about. It is therefore vital that wise leadership becomes integrated and united in a humanitarian movement. This movement must go beyond opposites to the principle of working not to defeat an apparent other group and instead working together with the intelligence of authentic unity. Eventually ‘Political Facilitation Standards’ could be developed out of a completely independent and open process and therefore go beyond corruption. Using the internet only, the people offering practical, wise and intelligent solutions that get the backing of peer reviews and the people could pass. This would eventually, over a long period of time, phase out the monetary system all together as more focus would be on solving the escalating problems rather than just making money.





CHAPTER SIXTEEN UNITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

We need to move away from short term thinking based on political gain and adopt an approach based on contribution and cooperation. A new vision is manifesting now, which is growing into a widespread understanding of unity based on wisdom, compassion, cooperation and peace. The previous approach was always influenced by the next national election, always focused on economic growth, but now the public is losing patience because they recognise that this ignorance cannot solve the growing crisis that we face. For essential and effective change across the globe, all people must represent, must transcend passivity and accept the world situation as it is. If this does not happen we will not solve the growing crisis. Political leaders will not be able to solve the crisis because a great change cannot be brought about just by righteousness. It can only happen with a force of the majority on the planet. There are now a vast number of people that are disconnected and fragmented but world citizenship can establish a global democracy and humanitarianism. If humanity can collectively embrace the sense of unity and mutuality, then a position to solve the global crisis is possible and billions of people can face the current chaos collectively. This transformation cannot currently happen because humanity follows leaders within a structure who are trying to fix a system that is permanently broken. Therefore, the majority must be aware and become active participants in the process of change and take full responsibility for the crisis.

86

Chapter Sixteen

It is the belief of being separate and isolated that makes people feel in conflict with one another. They refuse to ratify tolerance and ethical cooperation and therefore do not achieve improvements for the benefit of all. Science is proving that the universe is a unified whole and potential energy can create a responsibility for bringing progressive change at a global level. It is now the emergence of natural communication across the globe where the essential transformation can happen with direct democracy and self-organization for the integrity of humanity as a whole. The whole of humanity can change and adopt a new disposition to do what is simply right. This sense of what is right must become centre to the intrinsic authority of humanity as a whole. Humanity can meet in the outlook of collaboration and unification, as a constructive process that can start direct democracy and self-organization. The global crisis has emerged because of fragmentation in which people are divided by thinking systems. It is when people begin to function from the process of unification and intrinsic collaboration that this can manifest peace and order. It is therefore beyond dogma and is a simple recognition of our common humanity. The majority of decent people can now simply be both indivisible and cooperative and re-assert us all working together as a species, a species who have become disheartened with the current approach to the crisis we all face together. When elections take place politicians rapidly create a national marketing campaign based on half-truths and propaganda by telling people about their own apparent accomplishments and condemning opponents. The media follows the same collective and conformist view, which continues to promote a restrictive two-party system that traps the population in a cycle of problems. This understanding of the system can lead to cynicism, and sees our parliamentary democracy mocked satirically by political groups who begin to revolt in fractional ways against and outside the system. Locking ourselves into this cynicism will lead to more economic self-interest, control, and the worsening of the global crisis that we currently face. The national process, based on a struggle to access

Unity: What does it mean?

87

Parliament, in order to change it from within, will not lead to a compelling ethical force whilst a two-party system labours under a global economy. It would fail to attract all people for the good of all. We need a new organised and integral view of life that goes beyond the established order; a view that draws its strength from both a local and global perspective. We need to start thinking globally and move beyond a structure that is failing and damaging. We also need an ethical local significance that goes beyond smallminded thinking. A new model, connected to the workings of scientific practicality and ethical wisdom, will move humanity beyond fixed and outdated ideological differences. This new vision must lead to active participation that is governed by self-organised compassion. It will go beyond mere opinions within the structure of a political party or a group. At the same time, by not having practical support it cannot lead to effective action. It is therefore only by organising ourselves based on practical compassion, beyond division, and for the welfare of the whole, that we will arrive at sensible solutions which can become a reality. These solutions will only work with a global movement, directed by a clear awareness of life as a whole process. The practical wisdom from awareness is based on seeing the truth beyond conditioned ideas. This awareness is from open minds and hearts that lead to effective action and responsibility. Out of this there is a collective arising which is not based or focused on one individual or group. A collective that has the ability to express this awareness in a direct way, as a creative force, can transform our global society for humanity as a whole. The delusional idea that each nation state is separate has resulted in global economic survival and, therefore, has increased the control of global economic power. This ignores the sensible and logical truth that all parts are one organic process, and real solutions can only happen from this holistic comprehension. If this basic truth is ignored, then our 

88

Chapter Sixteen

cultures hold us back from being truly diverse, like holding back different flavours from one recipe. It will lock the individual into a limited tribe, a delusion of the whole. Yet, the whole is naturally equal and is beyond any ism or tribe, in the same way the sun shines on all. It is also a direct observation that the world is already in gradual deterioration and this could bring about the rapid destruction within nations. The local and global are one process and, if this is observed, it will lead humanity to real international solutions. The Earth is the conservation of humanity where these direct facts are truly equal beyond the superior and inferior imagination. It is a clear observation of natural laws within the universe of one organism beyond the primitive aspect of competition, which is a very small aspect of it. This intelligent approach is therefore an organising principle within nature for the condition of human existence as a part of it. Wise observations prevail over human history and these observations are in alignment with the Earth’s ecological process. It will therefore repair the organic process of nature and lead humanity through continual wise education. Our growing problems will only be solved by those human beings who directly see this, who see this natural oneness of life as a scientific fact. These people will balance the resources of the whole world in a sensible and systematic way. This will unify the international perspective with the local perspective in a holistic and integral way. In so doing, an observation of life based on Earth-centred understanding can be undeniably and organically achieved. A true understanding of this collective crisis will form from a direct connection to life that is free of the general way of thinking. More and more people are joining a wise, compassionate and unified global movement because they see this merging as the essential principles in the world beyond all else. A practical authenticity within these truths can bring the whole population into an international humanitarian society naturally.

Unity: What does it mean?

89

The crisis will increase while we depend on power games and not global responsibility of all, therefore what is the right thing to do? To be mindful of the global network that now is the over-arching context of human connection and has become an ethical standard. Humanity as a whole is now characterised by ethical principles that are now obvious in order to make the necessary changes. This will finally begin a truly compassionate and sustainable existence for all life, on this marvellous planet called Earth.



CHAPTER SEVENTEEN WISDOM

A world represented by wisdom would be totally open to the people, and all decisions would be explained step by step, informing people on how each project benefits the welfare of all people and the Earth, and is not based on individual self-interest. It would also be based on a conveyor-belt type system, where no single person remains the central focus or in the same position. Such standards would be constantly evolving and continually open to emerging solutions. Wise education embraces critical thinking and ethics but also helps people to appreciate life, compassion, unity, natural laws, the process of conditioning, and how one’s mind affects the world. We cannot wait for the economic system to collapse for this to evolve, and we should no longer just blame all the ills of the world on a system which is ‘out-there’. Each one of us affects the totality; we are both the problem and the solution. We are not going to see the end of the economic system for a long time and, meanwhile, there are many problems that need to be addressed. However, if we work together, learn from one another, and upgrade the intelligence of humanity, it seems logical that the monetary system will eventually come to an end. This may appear unrealistic or idealistic from the current worldview, but often what appears unrealistic can change very quickly. In an international cooperative framework, efficiency levels will dramatically improve and there will be far less wastage, which in the coming years will increasingly become vitally important.

Chapter Seventeen

92

Therefore, looking at the enormity of the crisis as objectively as we can, and the possible developments within the first half of this century, humanity will only survive if it works together in the ways already outlined. It will therefore need to eventually develop this international representative governance, possibly within the United Nations, that is directed by Earth-centric elected representatives. It will need to move away from ideological positions, policy proposals that maintain the status quo and have very little positive effect on the Earth’s environment. We need to respond to an unfolding global crisis like an emergency and develop practical solutions outside of any ideological paradigms by using greater levels of awareness, and Earth-centred critical and holistic thinking. “To create a profound change in the world, only requires that we create a profound change in those that lead the world.”121

 

EPILOGUE

What is outlined in this book may seem idealistic from the prospective of the current ‘homosphere’ constructed by dualistic thinking; however, natural wisdom about the universe has been understood throughout history and has always been ignored by the prevailing worldview of the time. The veil of individualism created by Enlightenment philosophy from the seventeenth century, imperial mentalities and industrialisation has covered up what enlightenment (throughout history) actually always means. “In our culture, ‘heart’ is considered to be something quite distinct from ‘mind’, the latter usually referring to our rational, thinking capacity. In the Eastern traditions, however, the word ‘heart’ does not mean emotions or sentimental feelings. In Buddhism, the words ‘heart’ and ‘mind’ are part of the same reality (citta in Sandskrit). In fact, when Buddhists refer to mind, they point not to the head, but to the chest. The mind that the Eastern traditions are most interested in is not the thinking capacity, but rather what the Zen master Suzuki Roshi called ‘big mind’: a fundamental openness and clarity which resonates directly with the world around us. The big mind is not created or possessed by anyone’s ego; rather, it is a universal wakefulness that any human being can tap into. The rational thinking apparatus we know so well in the West is, in this perspective, a ‘small mind’. The mind that is one with the heart is a much larger kind of awareness that surrounds the normally narrow focus of our attention.”122

The Earth community is beyond competition and is self-sustaining. Even though it does contain some lower levels of competition within it, people are starting to see its inherent unity and are combining their actions with nature itself. However, the current structure is based on different groups in competition with each other and forces the struggle for victory. This being the case the requirement of an International Humanitarian Organisation based on humanity as a whole is needed because there are no international

94

Epilogue

institutions that can solve the complex global crisis we face today. The United Nations cannot effectively create solutions because of the fragmented process of the system. The United Nations is also just an advisory body to create cooperation between nation states rather than having any power. The Earth Community is reduced to the aims of fragments and so a transformation in thinking is needed if we are to take responsibility for the Earth community. International affairs have been destructive throughout human history and the twentieth century has faced two world wars, alongside many other wars. We need a structure that is responsible for the Earth community and allocates members to a committee. Each member is fully responsible for the project it creates and every member who has created a project is accountable to the other members. The project leader must also establish cooperation by choosing members who can work together on creating policies and laws as a constant organic evolution. This cooperation is based on inherent unity and all responsibility must be based on this mature dialogue beyond competition. Decisions must emerge through a process of natural dialogue that is supported by the majority of a committee. Solutions cannot emerge by continuing with the fragmented structure at a surface level and therefore we now need to accept the scientific consensus of a unification. A movement that aims at achieving effective solutions must be aware of the thinking of all people. Every question must be considered from the perspective of ordinary people with the view to create unity that is deeper than simply a collective consensus. We must take challenging directions that go beyond simple nation state thinking and momentary advancement. This approach makes fragmentation redundant and is at the point where separate international affairs are replaced by unified scientific practicality within an international organisation for humanity as a whole. This unification is what science has now discovered about the universe and if we do not work together from

An International Humanitarian Organisation

95

this position then the crisis will continue. This scientific practicality is the basis of solutions and is a process that can emerge within international policy and regulation for humanity as a whole. This must now become the centre of global governance in order to solve the global crisis. This form of global governance must aim to always keep the peace and go beyond competition between nations. The major powers refuse to budge on the necessary changes to solve climate change due to this competition and therefore basic needs of the population, together with ecological balance, are ignored. International cooperation requires improving people's living conditions with ecological restoration within the unity and diversity of humanity as a whole. The solution to the climate crisis can happen by regulating industries from a policy above and beyond nations, which applies proportionally to all countries. Unfortunately, climate change has been relegated behind economics and is a permanent obstacle. International organisations must become the new authority in the world at resolving climate change. We need an international emergency unit for all areas, using task forces at a humanitarian level. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the World Trade Organization's (WTO) agenda of liberalisation, with profits for private interests that are based on the competition principle. The current structure continues to be part of environmental disasters and neo-liberal commercialization continues. One example of this is relying on bureaucratic institutions to promote the patenting of living organisms and intellectual property rights (IPR) on seed, which are disastrous. Throughout history there has been a focus on one’s adversary with the people battling against a common enemy. Current examples of this are Brexit in the UK and the rise of Donald Trump in the USA. However, this unification approach is about a greater compelling movement because it is based on a deeper urge arising from global communications and scientific advancement. Early signs of this were Barack Obama winning the US presidential election and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the USA are also partial reflections of this. The next step will be a global 

96

Epilogue

unification, which will have a tremendous impact. It is the genius of scientific practicality combined with holistic wisdom that can move beyond the idea of opponents and allow for a deeper recognition among a huge percentage of the population. It will get all different parts of society together with different personality types. Myers Briggs analysis and personalities and pre-cognitive natures of the rational, vision, sensate and pictorial can begin to work in complete cooperation and intelligence. The natural and organic need to work together will end battles fought against enemies and is now emerging across the world. If we continue with different groups going towards the same goal but without unification, then they will not achieve their goal. This is because it is people competing to do the same thing, whereas unity will draw on a stronger energy to achieve their goal much quicker. This cooperation will increase each individual reaching what they want to achieve. Humanity succeeds from learning from mistakes of the past and so individual efforts often lead to repetition, however, cooperation produces the right approach. This also emerges because of the increasing urgency of global governance in parts of the country that seriously require medication, health care and sanitation. Africa needs to play an equal role on policy-making coming from civil society and NGOs. The emergence of international communication is creating a greater chance of this new global social movement. Africa’s civil society needs to begin to articulate international policies beyond its position in the world. Non-state stakeholders must also begin a global governance agenda that can create a framework for humanity as a whole. This will also begin to replicate nature, just like self-regulation. It is clear that the United Nations does not have the capability to deal with the enormous responsibility of dealing with the climate crisis. It is also not able to reform itself because it is locked into the competition between nation states and the global neo-liberal economy. The United Nations cannot function for humanity as a whole due to the representation process in the General Assembly. The "one state, one vote," equalises different population sizes and

An International Humanitarian Organisation

97

therefore misrepresents. This is also reflected in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty for the enlargement of the European Union (EU), together with the 2002 African Union and the Union of South American Nations in 2008. However, this inability at the international level to truly represent the whole of humanity has developed the growing power of international institutions based on the goal of neo-liberalism, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. It is from this position that an International Humanitarian Organisation must succeed beyond economic comparative advantage and towards a consideration of all levels of the local, national and international for humanity beyond differences. Humanity must see this practical unit of integrity being vital if the functioning of an International Humanitarian Organisation is to work. The IHO must also go beyond being just different groups competing to win. The IHO must work at a human-to-human level where the process is not divided but is instead self-organised into wise unity alongside scientific practicality. The IHO is beyond separation and must have an international movement based on nonideological activism and authentic wisdom. The IHO needs to be intrinsically cooperative beyond idealism and instead face the reality as it is with this recognition of unity. It is wisdom and scientific practicality that enables the harmonious functioning of humanity. The IHO needs to develop selfgovernance and self-organisation using the internet to involve political activity in alignment with international unification. The United Nations cannot fully unify because it is based on competition between nation states. However, the emergence of effective global governance as a unified humanitarian organisation is beyond nation states, but is instead an entity for humankind. It must emerge as action on the ground, beyond all differences, where it can move beyond surface level relations to a holistic approach.



98

Epilogue

The holistic approach is a circular network that reflects the workings of universal laws. It patterns together as a constant evolutionary process with a local circle, regional circle, national circle and global circle. This would be tables like the United Nations based on peer reviewed work and expertise created by the self-organising principle as reflected in nature. It works in the same way we have atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, body, species and planets, solar systems, galaxies and the known universe. There are no fixed positons and the process is free flowing with free association based on each emerging project. These will be peer reviewed and expert driven. The internet is beginning to show signs of this but it is still fragmented. It is going to require an International Humanitarian Organisation based with a democratic process of international simultaneous policy implementation through a democratic unification of nations. This holistic approach would lead to a world based on intelligence and wisdom, social development, international cooperation and, therefore, renewable energy, careful conservation, recycling and biodegradable production leading to a high level of efficiency. This would cultivate new opportunities for innovation, creativity, exploration and enjoyment. On the other hand, the narrow motive of profit maximisation characterised by global capitalism and neoliberal thinking within human-centred thinking continues to ignore and perpetuate so-called ‘externalities’ such as environmental degeneration, poverty and conflict. The climate crisis is a radical problem that will require radical solutions and therefore radical new ways of thinking that are imperative to solving it — only time will prove this to be true. “One of the profound principles of life, is that of ‘order’ or ‘cooperation’. The universe works according to this principle, and so your body. Every cell works with cooperation, in support of the body. You do not have brain cells competing with blood cells because they think they should own more of the body. Each cell has its place, and when the body is healthy, all cooperate and work in harmony.”123

An International Humanitarian Organisation

99

Meanwhile, as long as short term economic growth is always given priority over the ecosystem, and IELs are constructed in a humancentric manner or side-lined by those in power, then the deterioration will obviously continue until it becomes catastrophic. The destructive trends of GHG accumulation can be reversed by actually creating a Montreal Protocol approach to GHGs and alternative technology supported by an IEO that has an ‘International legal constitution’ giving equal credibility to environmental and ethical needs rather than primarily economic ones. Surely, this is a wiser approach than putting economic interests above the very thing that sustains us all. By facing the world in crisis, we need to face ourselves. Humanity in industrialised nations (including our own) has become so dependent on living in an apparently secure and abundant reality that we need to reflect on how our ‘selves’ will actually be affected (emotionally and psychologically) when this security collapses and is taken away under the dual pressure of climate instability and economic disharmony. How are people going to cope with such loss? At present, western society is consumed with personal dramas, ambitions and intellectual ideas, simply because we can be. Under this context, how will each individual act and react when it is taken away? We cannot stand from a position of authority and righteousness if we lack the integrity. So to begin to solve the problem we need to look at the root cause of the problem and that is humanity — which is you and I. It is not the world that needs to change, we must change. It is not the world that is just too complex, we are. No system out there, including politicians, organisations or corporations, is preventing a compassionate and humane world, we are. We are a reflection of this world.



100

Epilogue

So, only when we face the fact of ourselves with complete honestly, awareness and non-judgement, can we begin to be part of the solution. Then perhaps we will begin to unite and work together to implement intelligent solutions and avert the disasters facing humanity. We need the courage to go beyond the systems that we have all collectively created, and that we allow to have authority and control over our lives. Only when we see this will we become clear on the enormity of the crisis. Humanity is locked in an ideological cage of its own making, and nature is moving faster than the cage can see. Externalities no longer exist in the economy today; human and Earth systems are interconnected and therefore excessive selfcentred individualism is the fundamental mistake of neo-liberal economics. An international progressive and humanitarian alliance can emerge across the world, allowing free enterprise to flourish that is hand-in-hand with ethics and cooperation. This will finally put an end to unethical economic activity that exploits workers and damages the Earth. Our interconnection is becoming more obvious than ever before: what happens on one side of the world will affect us here; it is this understanding that is transforming our culture. As previously mentioned, it is clear that intelligent solutions in ecology, economics, engineering, science, manufacturing, etc. already exist. We can continue to discuss these from an ideological perspective forever but if we cannot put them into practice at a level that will have effective significant change, then we are playing a humancentred game. So how do we get the so-called powers to make the necessary changes in a holistic and collective manner in order to avert disaster? Only through unity, through speaking with one voice with those who have put away the need to prove, the need to compete and win (outside of fun and sports), and who truly care about the

An International Humanitarian Organisation

101

welfare of the whole, working with heart and mind. It is these that will change the world. The human spirit, shared interests — it is these that need to be unleashed if we are to solve our collective problems; this is the heart of truly ethical and progressive politics.

 



APPENDIX

Solutions As stated in several chapters of this book, the challenge of the twenty-first century is to improve the quality of life for the whole human race and repair the damage humanity has done to the Earth. We therefore need to work with those who share this vision within a growing integrated network using all the powers of modern technology to bring about a cooperative, more intelligent and beneficial society for all. Below is a list of the solutions from the book that can be implemented in order to fix the escalating problems that we all face together.

The Solutions: x We need to move beyond both state socialism and popular capitalism, neither allowing a centralised state, international banks nor transnational corporations control over decisions and the people. x We need a ‘non-ideological’ and ‘people-centred politics’ based on our collective intelligence. x Government and legal institutions have a responsibility to maintain a viable life for all people, a practical authority with the consent of the people, because practical rules, laws and accountability are needed for a sane society. But we must have more sensible laws that lead to real accountability, beyond the self-interests of the powerful. x This approach has proven to be far more effective, not just because it is a good thing to do but because it is the wisest

104

Appendix

thing to do, whether it is for one’s own success or for the benefit of the whole community. x It appears that the ‘survival of the fittest’ now depends on cooperation and ethics and not narrow self-interests. Ethics and cooperation must become the new authority in the world, rather than just power politics and profit maximisation. x We must make fair trade the accepted norm, moving food production beyond mono-culture and industrialised farming and into a holistic, distributed and cooperative model. x We need a sound monetary and banking system that prevents the casino economy, and regulates in the interest of the people and the Earth as a whole, rather than serving the interests of the economy itself. We therefore need a global ethical authority. Where ethical rules prevent any one power damaging the Earth or exploiting the people, and in doing so reform the overarching monetary system so that it is fair and just. x We must urgently move beyond oil dependency by using cutting edge eco-technology that is already available; it is a myth that we do not have the technology, we do! We created the micro-chip, cracked the DNA code, landed on the moon — we can universally adopt renewables that are also transnational if we implement a global governance structure based on ethics and wisdom. x We need to end policies that support the selling of weapons around the world; this is clearly not a progressive policy. It is far more progressive to put investment in technology that advances global peace and sustainability. x We need to globally regulate CEOs and bankers that continue to receive huge financial bonuses based on bottom-line profit margins.

An International Humanitarian Organisation

105

x We need to work towards a living wage in developed and developing nations so that all the people can live a decent standard of living. x International ethical laws should bind all countries to the same legal and economic responsibilities, based on fairness, transparency, ethics, peace and human development, beyond purely economic motives. x International power-struggles have to be replaced by international cooperation with ethical rules that limit any one group having power over others. x We need political leadership standards based on a greater sense of humanitarianism and wisdom. x We need international democratic reforms that are based on our interdependence. x The current concentration of power has to submit to this new authority in the world — a world of ethics, transparency, cooperation and a wiser democracy. We cannot allow economic self-interests to take precedence any longer; we need an ethical economy that is not just about encouraging more growth, at any cost. x We need to evolve the old systems of control that lead to capitalism and communism and into a more free-flowing system, which better balances cooperation and free enterprise. x We need a new social contract, a people’s constitution, which empowers people to be active participants and not passive observers. x We no longer need individualism that is just about competing against others for control and resources, nor a collective that blindly conforms to a uniform and standardised rule. This 

106

Appendix

needs to be nurtured through a wiser education system that teaches self-knowledge, practical wisdom and ethical philosophy as well as all the traditional knowledge-based subjects. x A new democracy must be fluid and organic, empowering each creative, unique and diverse individual to work together and help solve our collective and global problems. x A society can only be as great as its people. You cannot ensure a healthy and happy future for the human race if you keep ‘processing’ each new generation as if their sole task is to find a well-paid job. That will only lead to further destruction in the world. The past generations have been very busy destroying everything in the pursuit of money. It is exceptionally important that we start to educate all people on how to live wiser and happier lives, instead of simply profitable ones. x The environment cannot be seen as just another issue. The environment sustains us all; we are not separate from the Earth. If the ecosystem is out of balance, it cannot sustain all species. x The environment is the source of all economic activity and if this goes out of balance then there will be no economics at all. The Sioux Native Americans have a famous saying, “When all the trees are gone and there is no more food, you cannot eat money”. Due to our compulsive consumerism, the world and its environment are on a negative trend. If this situation is to ever improve, it will require the ‘complete and full cooperation’ of all countries. x We need to reform our institutions and laws at national and international level in order to truly protect the interests of everyone. We therefore need sensible and independent ethical standards put in place above and beyond the interests

An International Humanitarian Organisation

107

of those few with the most economic power. We need rules that make corporations contribute towards the well-being of all rather than just profit maximisation for the few, an agenda that will enhance ethical and sustainable trading for a fair deal for everyone. x Some 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation services, including the poorest in the world. Today, an estimated 1.2 billion people (20%) of the world’s population do not have a safe source of water. Each year, roughly 3.4 million people, mostly children, die from water-related diseases and some 2.2 million die from diarrhoeal diseases associated with inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene. (Sources: UNESCO, WHO.) x It is vital that we upgrade the global society so that we live in a world that is truly ethical. This truly ethical world would see an end to poverty, war and famine and enjoy a clean environment, health care and education for all. Humanity really needs to put an end to outdated problems, if it is to be considered a mature species. We need to develop our human potential for the whole world, and since everything affects everything else, we can only have a developed world when we work together. x In truth, all these interests do not exist separately and can only be seen as part of, and with great influence over, each other. x Fundamentally, we all want pretty much the same things in life. We want peace, happiness and a safe and secure lifestyle for our families and ourselves. We want to see an end to wars, violence, famine, child exploitation, environmental destruction, etc. x We need to urgently move beyond the status quo – we need real vision, wisdom and integrity. 

Appendix

108

x It makes sense that as our interests are the same, we should be working together to achieve them. x With your support, together we will make this happen.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wrote this for many reasons and for some I am unware of, it sometimes all seems to happen simply by itself for no reason, although I know deeply it is needed for some purpose. For the person reading this right now I say thank you because the words do not exist without a reader manifesting it. Without you the pages do not exist. When it is on the shelf the words are simply another in a state of potential. On a less cryptic and more professional level I would like to thank all at Cambridge Scholars Publishing for your time and patience, Lloyd Barton for being a very prompt and efficient proof reader. I would thank Clive Fisher, Nicky Fisher, Jonathan Benn, Grant Dive, Steven Allen, John Bunzl, Christopher Houghton Budd and Tony Armitage for sharing their deeply philosophical and practical perspectives, together with much support. My brothers and sisters for being always close but direct. My parents for bringing me into existence to be able to experience life and write this book, together with allowing me to have time and space to grow with a sense of freedom, which later manifested with some modesty. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Jennie Fisher for putting up with me when I am often in the clouds. Her feet are so on the ground and who you are is constantly in my heart. Thank you.

FURTHER READING

The Eye Never Sleeps: Striking to the Heart of Zen (Paperback), Shambhala Publications Inc (1 Nov. 1991), Dennis Genpo Merzel (Author) The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (Hardcover), Crown Publications; Reprint edition (1 Dec. 2000), Thomas Berry (Author) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology (Paperback), University of Chicago Press; New edition (23 May 2000), G Bateson The Ecology of Commerce (Paperback), Harper Paperbacks (1 Nov. 2010), Paul Hawken (Author) Environmental Ethics: An Introduction with Readings (Philosophy & the Human Situation) (Paperback), Routledge (7 Dec. 2000), John Benson Animate Earth: Science, Intuition and Gaia (Paperback), Green Books; Second edition (5 Mar. 2009), Stephan Harding (Author) Beyond Civilisation: Humanity’s Next Great Adventure (Paperback), Crown Publications (5 April 2001), Daniel Quinn (Author) Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community (Hardcover), Sierra Club Books (2006), Berry Thomas (Author) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Paperback), House of Anansi Press; 2nd edition (2003), Noam Chomsky (Author) The Dream of the Earth (Paperback), Sierra Club Books (15 Oct.2006), Thomas Berry (Author) The Universe Story (Paperback), HarperCollins; Reprint edition (1 Jan. 1994), by Brian Swimme (Author), Thomas Berry (Author) Exploring Complexity (Hardcover), W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd (13 Nov. 1989), by Greg Nicolis (Author), Ilya Prigogine (Author) The Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many, and Endangered the Planet

112

Further Reading

(Paperback), The Lilliput Press; Revised edition (1 Sept. 2011), R.J. Douthwaite (Author) Eunomia: New Order for a New World (Paperback), Oxford University Press, USA (15 Mar. 2001), Philip Allott (Author) A Brief History of Everything (Paperback), Gateway; 2nd Revised edition (1 April 2001), Ken Wilber (Author) Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World (Hardcover), Shambhala Publications; Reprint edition (19 Sept. 2011), Ken Wilber (Author) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (Paperback), Shambhala Publications Inc; New edition (1 Dec. 2000), Ken Wilber (Author) The Systems View of the World (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity & the Human Sciences) (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity & the Human Sciences) (Paperback), Hampton Press; 2nd Revised edition (28 Feb. 1996), Ervin Laszlo (Author) Freedom from the Known (Paperback), Rider (1 July 2010), J.Krishnamurti (Author) The Awakening of Intelligence (Paperback), Harper One (6 May 1987), J. Krishnamurti (Author) Think on These Things (Paperback), Harper San Francisco; Reprint edition (18 Aug. 1997), J. Krishnamurti (Author), D.Rajagopal (Editor) The Impossible Question (Paperback), Penguin Books Ltd; New edition (31 Aug. 1978), Krishnamurti (Author) Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, and Why No One Saw It Coming (Hardcover), Penguin Books; Reprint edition (22 May 2008), Paul Hawken (Author) The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology (IO) (Paperback), North Atlantic Books, U.S. (2 Feb. 1995), Alan Dregson (Author), Yuichi Inoue (Author) Higher Creativity (Paperback), Jeremy P Tarcher (13 Jan.2000), Willis Harman (Author)

An International Humanitarian Organisation

113

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager’s Guide to Applying Systems Thinking (Paperback), Nicholas Brealey Publishing (11 July 2002), Dennis Sherwood (Author) The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Skills for Creativity and Problem Solving (Paperback), Thorsons (15 Sept. 1997), Joseph O'Connor (Author), Ian McDermott (Author) Creating True Peace: Ending Conflict in Yourself, Your Family, Your Community and the World (Paperback), Rider (4 Sept. 2003), Thich Nhat Hanh (Author) Surviving the Century: Facing Climate Chaos and Other Global Challenges (Hardcover), Routledge (28 Oct. 2008), Herbert Girardet (Author, Editor) Earth Community, Earth Ethics (Paperback), World Council of Churches (WCC Publications) (1 Jan. 1996) by Larry Rasmussen (Author) The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community (BK Currents) (Hardcover), Berrett-Koehler (1 Nov. 2007), David Korten (Author) Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (Paperback), Routledge; First Edition (1 Jun. 2003), Lester R. Brown (Author) Fifty Key Thinkers of the Environment, Routledge (7 Dec. 2000) (Paperback) by Joy Palmer (Editor), David Cooper (Editor), Peter Blaze Corcoran (Editor) Living in Integrity: Global Ethic to Restore a Fragmented Earth (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy) (Paperback), Rowman & Littlefield (1 Jan. 1998), Laura Westra (Author) Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism (Paperback), Shambhala Publications Inc; New Ed edition (22 Nov. 2002), Trungpa Tulku Chogyam Trungpa (Author) Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend of Dialogue, (Paperback) Routledge; Reprint edition (22 Nov. 2006) David Bohm (Author) Thought as a System (Paperback) by Lee Nichol (Foreword), Routledge (1 Dec. 1994), David Bohm (Author) Propaganda(Paperback), Ig Publishing; New Ed edition (1 Sept. 2004), Edward L. Bernays (Author) 

114

Further Reading

Free to Be Human: Intellectual Self-defence in an Age of Illusions (Paperback), Green Books; 2Rev Ed edition (13 April 2000), David Edwards (Author) Nature’s Due: Healing Our Fragmented Culture (Paperback), FLORIS BOOKS (30 Jun. 2007), Brian Goodwin (Author) The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture (Paperback), Non Basic Stock Line; Reissue edition (1 Feb. 1988), Fritjof Capra (Author) The Tao of Physics (Flamingo) (Paperback), London: Flamingo; 3rd Edition, 3rd printing edition (1992), Fritjof Capra (Author) Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People (Flamingo) (Paperback) Flamingo; New Edition (23 Feb. 1989), Fritjof Capra (Author) The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means (Hardcover), The Perseus Books Group (15 April 2008), George Soros (Author) We-think: The Power of Mass Creativity (Hardcover), Profile Books; 2nd edition (12 Feb. 2009), Charles Leadbeater (Author) The Tao of Holism: A Blueprint for 21st Century Living (Paperback), O Books (24 Jan. 2008), Howard Jones (Author) Wild Law: Protecting Biological and Cultural Diversity (Paperback), Green Books (20 Nov. 2003), Cormac Cullinan (Author) The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of LeaderlessOrganizations (Hardcover), Portfolio; Reprint edition (28 Aug. 2008) Ori Brafman (Author), Rod A. Beckstrom (Author) Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (Hardcover) by Jeffrey Sachs (Author) Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (Hardcover), Penguin; Reprint edition (26 Mar.2009), Don Tapscott (Author), Anthony Williams (Author) Third Millennium Capitalism: Convergence of Economic, Energy, and Environmental Forces (Hardcover), Quorum Books (28 Feb. 2000) Wyatt M. Rogers (Author) Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (Paperback), W. W. Norton & Company; Revised edition (22 Jan. 2008) LR Brown (Author)

An International Humanitarian Organisation

115

Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth and Humanity (Paperback), Financial Times/ Prentice Hall; 2 edition (18 July 2007), Stuart L. Hart (Author) Capitalism as If the World Matters (Paperback), Taylor & Francis Ltd (22 Oct. 2007), Jonathon Porritt (Author) The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience (Paperback), Green Books (1 Sept. 2008), Rob Hopkins (Author) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (Paperback), Vintage (29 Jan. 2009), by William McDonough (Author), Michael Braungart (Author) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (Paperback), Penguin (30 Jun. 2011), Jared Diamond (Author) Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership (Paperback), BerrettKoehler; 2nd edition (1 Jun. 2011), Jaworski (Author) Affluenza (Paperback), Vermilion; reprint edition (27 Dec. 2007), Oliver James (Author) The Second Great Depression (Paperback), Booklocker Inc.,US (18 Mar. 2005), Warren Brussee (Author) Being and Time (Paperback), State University of New York Press (1 July 2010), Martin Heidegger (Author) Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future (Paperback), Henry Holt & Company; Reprint edition (4 Mar. 2008), Bill McKibben (Author) Simulacra and Simulation (The Body in Theory: Histories of Cultural Materialism) (Paperback), the University of Michigan Press (31 Dec. 1994), Jean Baudrillard (Author), Sheila Glaser (Translator) The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilisation (Paperback), Souvenir Press Ltd (9 May 2007), Thomas Homer-Dixon (Author) Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace (Paperback), Zed Books (26 Nov. 2005), Vandana Shiva (Author) A Sand County Almanac (Galaxy Books) (Paperback), Oxford University Press; New Edition (Mar. 1969) Aldo Leopold (Author) 

116

Further Reading

The Earth Charter in Action: Toward a Sustainable World (Hardcover), KIT Publishers; 1st edition (Jan. 2006), Peter Blaze Corcoran (Editor) Tao Te Ching: The Book of the Way (Paperback), Kyle Cathie; New edition (14 Sept. 2000), Lao-Tzu (Author), Stephen Mitchell (Translator) The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era (Paperback), O Books (13 Oct. 2005), Steve Taylor (Author) Truth Vs Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference (Paperback), Veritas Publishing (30 July 2005), David R. Hawkins (Author) Pure Power: How to Achieve World Peace and Happiness (Paperback), Knight Publishing Group (7 Dec. 2002), James Christopher (Author) Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain (Paperback), Penguin Books (1 Sept. 2005), Antonio Damasio (Author) On Nature and Language (Paperback), Praeger (14 Jan. 1986), Noam Chomsky (Author), Adriana Belletti (Editor), Luigi Rizzi (Editor) The Meme Machine (Paperback), Oxford University Press, USA (16 May 2000), Susan Blackmore (Author) Silent Spring (Penguin Modern Classics) (Paperback) by Rachel Carson (Author), Shackleton (Introduction) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered (Paperback), Vintage (18 Aug. 2011), E.F. Schumacher (Author) The Translucent Revolution: How Ordinary People are Waking up and Changing the World: Paperback), New World Library; First Printing edition (May 2005), Arjuna Nick Ardagh (Author) Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings (Paperback), New Catalyst Books (1 Mar. 2007), John Seed (Author), Joanna Macy (Author), Pat Flemming (Author), Arne Naess (Author) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (Paperback), Vintage (29 Jan. 2009), William McDonough (Author), Michael Braungart (Author)

An International Humanitarian Organisation

117

Finding Our Way - Leadership For An Uncertain Time (Hardcover), BERRETT-KOEHLER (1 Mar. 2005), Margaret Wheatley (Author) Handbook of Action Research: Concise Paperback Edition: Student Edition (Paperback), SAGE Publications Ltd; Concise edition (13 Dec. 2005), Peter Reason (Editor), Hilary Bradbury (Editor) Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society (Paperback), NICHOLAS BREALEY PUBLISHING (2 Jun. 2005), Peter M. Senge (Author), Joseph Jaworski (Author), C. Otto Scharmer (Author), Betty Sue Flowers (Author) Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (Paperback), Wiley-Blackwell; New edition (20 Oct. 2005), Don Edward Beck (Author), Christopher Cowan (Author) Ants, Galileo and Gandhi: Designing the Future of Business Through Nature, Genius and Compassion (Paperback), Greenleaf Publishing (31 Aug. 2003), Sissel Waage (Editor) Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect [Special Edition] (Paperback),







END NOTES

1

One example: Professor Chris Green said that the Kyoto targets cannot be met because they demand a two per cent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions every year from 2000 to 2010. In practice, this would require a four per cent drop in emissions per capita every year to counterbalance population growth and consumption growth. 2 From the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in September 2006. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) five years earlier in 2001 also released a summary of its Third Assessment Report, which said that global warming followed an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution and may be much worse over the next century than had first been thought. 3 Professor Chris Green quote from McGill Reporter ‘Why Kyoto’s a no go.’ (April 6, 2000) Volume 32 Number 14 4 Cormac Cullinan ‘Finding our way to a viable future: a response to Professors Warren and Lee.’ (16 November 2005) p1 5 Former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States Department of Commerce 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming 7 James Lovelock ‘The Earth Is About To Catch A Morbid Fever.’ The Independent, 20 January, 2006 and Michael McCarthy 'We Are Past The Point Of No Return.' The Independent, 20 January, 2006. Climate scientist articles: http://www.countercurrents.org/climatechange.htm and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runawaytippingpo intsof-no-return/ 8 Tim Flannery ‘The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change.’ Penguin Books (2005), p190-202 9 Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization 10 The IPCC was set up in 1988 and comprises of scientists from government agencies, universities and the private sector. 11 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p10 12 Ibid

120 13

End Notes

J.W. Anderson ‘The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change: Background, Unresolved Issue and Next Step Resources for the Future.’ RFF (January 1998) p24 14 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p8 15 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘the International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p61 16 Ibid p79 17 ‘Kyoto Out of Kilter’ The Monirers View (December 06, 2005 edition) http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1206/p08s02-comv.html “One flaw in the Kyoto treaty is that its legal targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, set in 1997, were mainly guesswork. Now many nations that signed onto it will likely not meet their targets for 2008-2012.” 18 Kal Raustiala “Compliance and Effectiveness in International Regulatory Cooperation.” (2000) 32 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 387 19 4.10 of the IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information relevant to interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsyn.htm 20 ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, often shortened to Rio Declaration, was a short document produced at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). 21 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm 22 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p23 23 Ibid p63 24 Ibid p1 25 Ibid p61 26 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan praised the Montréal Protocol as ‘perhaps the most successful environmental agreement to date’ Sierra Club. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Service Module 7: Montreal Protocol – Overview, www.unido.org/doc/5072 27 http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_ozonelayer.html 28 Statement by Economics professor Chris Green at the British Antarctic Survey

An International Humanitarian Organisation 29

121

Farhana Yamen and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p10 30 Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It.’ Butler and Tanner (2006) p227 31 Elizabeth Kolbert ‘Field Notes from a Catastrophe.’ Bloomsbury (2006) p106 32 Professor Chris Green quote from McGill Reporter ‘Why Kyoto’s a no go.’ (April 6, 2000) Volume 32 Number 14 33 William Chandler, Battelle Memorial Institute. Roberto Schaeffer. Federal University of Rio De Janeiro, Zhou Dadi. China Energy Research Institute, P.R. Shukla. Indian Institute of Management, Fernando Tudela. El Colegio De Mexico. Ogunlade Davidson. University of Cape Town. Sema AlpanAtamer, Med-Consult, Turkey. ‘Climate change mitigation in developing countries Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey’ Pew Center on Global Climate Change (October 2002) 34 Ibid 35 Prue Taylor, ‘An Ecological Approach to International Law.’ Routledge; 1 edition (March 27, 1998) 36 http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/Insight/Dec-03/4.asp 37 Not ‘Natural Law’ based on Christian morality. 38 Christopher D. Stone ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.’ Tioga Pub. Co.; New edition (June 1988) 39 Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice.’ Green Books (2003) p141 40 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p11 41 Forward by Thomas Berry in Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice.’ Green Books (2003) p15 42 Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice.’ Green Books (2003) 43 Cormac Cullinan ‘Finding our way to a viable future: a response to Professors Warren and Lee.’ (16 November 2005) 44 http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentI D=78&ArticleID=1163 Principle 1 45 Ibid Principle 12 46 William Chandler, Battelle Memorial Institute etc. ‘Climate change mitigation in developing countries Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South



122

End Notes

Africa, and Turkey.’ Pew Center on Global Climate Change (October 2002) 47 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p121 48 Prue Taylor ‘An Ecological Approach to International Law.’ Routledge; 1st edition (March 27, 1998) 49 William Chandler, Battelle Memorial Institute etc. ‘Climate change mitigation in developing countries Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey.’ Pew Center on Global Climate Change (October 2002) 50 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p11 51 Ibid p61 52 Xue Hanqin ‘Transboudary Damage in International Law’ Cambridge University Press (2003) 53 http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/y09 00e/ y0900e08.htm 54 Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice.’ Green Books (2003) p194 55 http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp? DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 56 Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice.’ Green Books (2003) p165 57 Ibid p53 58 Peter Brown, director of the McGill School of Environment. http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/32/14/kyoto/ 59 James Lovelock ‘Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth.’ Oxford University Press (2000) 60 Ibid 61 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p13 62 Daniel C. Esty and Maria H. Ivanova ‘The Road Ahead: Conclusions and Action Agenda.’ Yale University p4 63 The name for economic liberalism within international economic policy from the 1970s onwards. 64 Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global

An International Humanitarian Organisation

123

Warming and What We Can Do about It.’ Butler and Tanner (2006) p273 65 Ibid 66 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p1 67 Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming And What We Can Do About It.’ Butler and Tanner (2006) p250 68 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p2 69 Article 3 and 4 of FCCC and Article 10 in Kyoto 70 Joanna Depledge, ‘Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol; An Article-by-Article Textual History.’ UN Doc. FCCC/TP/2000/2. (25 November 2000) p 295-306 71 Cormac Cullinan ‘Finding our way to a viable future: a response to Professors Warren and Lee.’ (16 November 2005) p4 72 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p3 73 John Whalley and Ben Zissimos ‘Making Environmental Deals: The Economic Case for a World Environmental Organization’ Warwick University. P4 74 The Kyoto loopholes: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125d.htm 75 Marrakesh Accords, see ‘Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001', UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2 (vol II, January 21, 2002). 76 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p187-96 77 Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p159-87 78 Ibid p156-9 79 Kyoto Protocol, arts. 6(3), 12(9); see also, in the Marrakesh Accords, Decision 16/CP.7, Annex, para. 29; Decision 17/CP.7, Annex, para. 33; and Decision 18/CP.7, Annex, para. 5. 80 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php> 81 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p94 82 Ibid 83 For example, see: Farhana Yamin and Joanna Depledge ‘The International



124

End Notes

Climate Change Regime: A Guide to Rules, Institutions and Procedures.’ Cambridge University Press (2004) p378-97 84 David D. Victor 'Enforcing international law: implications for an effective global warming regime.' Duke Envtl L. & Pol’y F. (1999) p147 86 David D. Victor 'Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change: Numbers, Interests and Institutions.' Global Environmental Politics Volume 6, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 90-103 87 http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/teachersguide/teachersguide.htm 88 Richard G. Gann and Paul A. Reneke, Editors. ‘Proceedings of HOTWC2002 12th Halon Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque.’ NM.’NIST Special Publication 984 (April 20 – May 2, 2002) 89 The Ozone Hole, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, www.theozonehole.com/montreal.htm. 90 Atmosphere, Climate and Environment Information Programme, Montreal Protocol, www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/ Ozone Depletion/Older/Montreal_Protocol.html. 91 http://www.unido.org/doc/5072 92 http://www.esshome.com/news/globalwarming/ozone-depletion.asp 93 ‘Interface began strong innovation in environmental sustainability especially in reducing the use of petroleum. In 2003 Interface announced a partnership with Tricycle Inc. to dematerialize (moving from physical to digital) their product development and sampling processes on a global basis. In 2006 Interface announced a program called Mission Zero with a goal of eliminating any negative impact the company may have on the environment by 2020.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Inc. 94 A marketing term coined by Theodore Levitt in the 1960’s by Harvard Business Review that encourages business to see themselves within a wider context. 95 David Goodstein ‘Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil.’ W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition (February 28, 2005) 96 Paul Hawken ‘The Ecology of Commerce.’ Harper Business, U.S. (Aug 1994) p3 97 Ozone Secretariat ‘Protection of the Ozone Layer -Montreal Protocol: Themes for 199: A Presentation Kit UNEP.’ p14 98 J Krishnamurti ‘All the Marvellous Earth’ Krishnamurti Foundation of America (2000) p39

An International Humanitarian Organisation

125

99 Thomas Berry ‘The Great Work: Our Way into the Future.’ Crown Publications (1 Feb 2000) p5 100 Cormac Cullinan ‘Finding our way to a viable future: a response to Professors Warren and Lee.’ (16 November 2005) p4 101 Cormac Cullinan ‘Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice’ Green Books (2003) p134 102 Thomas Berry ‘The Great Work: Our Way into the Future.’ Crown Publications (1 Feb 2000) 103 Ibid p177 104 Mike Bell ‘Thomas Berry and Earth Jurisprudence: An Essay.’ Inuksuk Management Consultants (July 2001) 105 Peter Virtuosic ‘Human domination of Earth's ecosystem.’ Science Mag. (July 26, 1997) 106 Al Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It.’ Butler and Tanner (2006) p249 107 Ibid p214 108 For example, see: Adam Smith ‘The Wealth of Nations’ (1776) 109 Cormac Cullinan ‘Justice for All.’ Article published in Resurgence Magazine No.216. (Sept/Oct 2002) 110 Thomas Berry ‘The Great Work: Our Way into the Future.’ Crown Publications (1 Feb 2000) p104 111 http://echoesfromemptiness.com/2011/08/15/creativity-and-habit-aremutually-exclusive/ 112 Ken Wilber ‘Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Second Edition.’ Shambala, pxi 113 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Bohm 114 David Korten ‘The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.’ Berrett-Koehler (1 May 2006), p15 115 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm 116 See both books: ‘The Earth is Our Business’ and ‘Eradicating Ecocide’. 117 J Krishnamurti ‘All the Marvellous Earth.’ Krishnamurti Foundation of America (2000) p5 118 Quote by ‘Upton Sinclair’ from AL Gore ‘An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It.’ Butler and Tanner (2006) p266 119 Cormac Cullinan ‘Finding our way to a viable future: a response to Professors Warren and Lee.’ (16 November 2005) p2 120 Ibid 121 James Christopher ‘Pure Power: How to Achieve World Peace and



126

End Notes

Happiness.’ Knights Publishing Group (2002) p263 122 John Welwood (ed) ‘Awakening the Heart. East/West approaches to psychotherapy and the healing relationship.’ Shambhala, Boston and London, (1985) Introduction p viii. 123 James Christopher ‘Pure Power: How to Achieve World Peace and Happiness.’ Knights Publishing Group (2002) p228

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

James was born and raised in Nottingham, UK. In 1997 he joined the Labour Party because at the time he was inspired by its vision. James intuitively resonated with the idea that we 'achieve more together than we achieve alone'. He canvassed for the Labour Party in most of the elections up until 2004, at which time he left the party. In 2001, at the age of 19, he moved to London and started an undergraduate degree in Politics and the process of learning became insatiable and nothing was more important to him than understanding the big questions about life. In 2003 James gained an internship as a research assistant to the Secretary of State for International Development the RT Hon. Hilary Benn MP. During this time he worked with Cabinet Ministers and met with the Prime Minister while he researched various political issues. James shadowed the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development, when oral question responses were being prepared for the House of Commons, during confidential meetings and in media interviews. Being involved with the Parliamentary process gave him a direct experience of the workings of politics. James finished his undergraduate degree in 2004 and was appointed to a work placement at the senior think tank, the Fabian Society. He worked on the Commission for Life Chances and Child Poverty called ‘Life Chances: what do the public really think about poverty?’ The Commission looked into the public’s opinion on child poverty. Later in 2004, James felt that mainstream politics was seriously lacking integrity and vision. His view of the world took on a more integral, authentic, international, holistic, ethical and ecological perspective, and he felt mainstream politics was lagging miles

128

About the Author

behind those at the cutting edge of human development. James developed a deeper appreciation and understanding of the world’s problems by studying the writings of people like Jidda Krishnamurti, Thomas Berry, Ken Wilber and Professor David Bohm. In 2005, James moved to the Cornish countryside, where he spent a lot of time considering the world’s problems and how they could be resolved. After a year working as a professional and award-winning magician in Cornwall (he also had a deep interest in the magic arts; it has been a serious hobby for him where he has developed professional achievements from a young age), he went on to study international law at the University of Nottingham. James wanted to understand how the law should work for those in need. He did a Masters in International Law, where he continued to realise what he had in Cornwall — that we are all inter-connected and that the local and the global are one. If we are to solve the global crises, then we must see that as individuals we all share in that responsibility for change and need to work together. James saw how international problems need practical and integrated solutions. In 2006, this led him to write a dissertation on International law and climate change called ‘A critique of the International Climate Change Regime and ways in which multilateral cooperation can make it truly effective’. He strongly and clearly thinks that his work contains substantial ideas about solving the current climate crisis. James has been working for the government, Policy Expert for leading centre-left political parties and NGOs across the UK and Trustee and Political Liaison Coordinator for the International Simultaneous Policy UK (Simpol UK). He is now Global Ambassador for Global Resolutions, which is an organisation for using New Year’s Eve for promoting humanitarian ideas and bringing about the millennium development goals in integral and systematic way.

An International Humanitarian Organisation

129

James is also a Legal Consultant who specialises in public international law. He is giving presentations and speeches at institutions and universities that explore the way international solutions can be implemented in order to fix the escalating problems that we all face together. As a Journalist and Speaker his commentaries on international relations regarding energy and the environment have also been on both international news channels and international conferences that offer insights into the current uncertainties and concerns across the world. James is an official expert member of the Global Minds in the Global Journal and Lecturer for the Law Training Centre in Canterbury. He has been focusing on finding wise and intelligent solutions from a young age and now he feels that it is severely urgent to directly address them in this the second decade of the twenty-first century. James also Co-Organiser for One People One World, founder of WiseTalk and Emancipate. James is currently also setting up his own legal practice to be open in 2017. James is now motivated by a single, simple, powerful idea which he wants to play a part in building a better society for all.



ABOUT THE BOOK

“The book that will transform the world.” “This book is the solution to a growing crisis, a crisis that is an urgent and central pivot for the future humanity in this the twenty-first century. The book with transform the world and be remembered in history like all those books that have directed and changed the course of history.” James’s book is a concise account of our current approach to the climate crisis, which provides a clear view of the current situation, the history of protocols, and promises that have failed. The book goes on to explore the unification, global governance emergence and the need for the development of an International Environmental and Humanitarian Organisation that can implement international legal solutions to the climate crisis, which is just one of many growing crises. The book holds substantial international solutions, exploring the urgent need for an international ethical and progressive alliance that has authority above and beyond economic self-interests. It proposes that these solutions can only happen if it is based on an international unity emerging from our collective ethics and wisdom among humanity today. It has taken ten years for James to put this book together and it is now time to unleash this intelligence and wisdom into the mainstream across the world.